confidence. See id. (“A debtor-creditor relationship is not by itself a fiduciary relationship although the addition of a relationship of confidence, trust, or superior knowledge or control may indicate that such a relationship exists.” (internal quotations omitted)); Mfrs. Hanover Trust Co. v. Yanakas, 7 F.3d 310, 318 (2d Cir.1993) (noting that although no fiduciary duties arise in the ordinary debt- or/creditor relationship, they may arise under the proper circumstances) (quoting Fisher v. Bishop, 108 N.Y. 25, 28, 15 N.E. 331 (1888)); Murphy, 90 N.Y.2d at 270-72, 660 N.Y.S.2d 371 (noting that fiduciary duties may arise in the insurance context if the requisite trust and confidence is established); Batas v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 281 A.D.2d 260, 724 N.Y.S.2d 3, 7 (1st Dep’t 2001) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the complaint alleges that the 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing fiduciary exception in the erisa context (B) recognizing similar duties (C) recognizing that fiduciary duties may arise in the insurance context where circumstances are appropriate (D) holding that a special relationship may arise from the factual circumstances of a particular case (E) holding that a breach of duties that a fiduciary contractually assumes beyond those duties imposed by law is considered to arise out of contract
(C)