Hello, following problems. I do not need a long explanation. I would like something simple, right and to the point.

Thanks

In 2000, Loretta Henry was pregnant and experiencing pain in her abdomen. After visiting a clinic, she was referred to Flagstaff Medical Hospital. Once there, she was examined and treated by Dr. Kraig Knoll, a physician with a physician's group providing a service for the hospital. Knoll advised her to have her gallbladder removed, and he per- formed the surgery. Although Henry read and signed two consent forms, she was never told that Knoll was not an employee of the hospital and was instead an independent contractor. Subsequently, Henry sued the hospital for negligence when after her child was born, both mother and child sustained injuries. She claimed there was an apparent agency relationship. The hospital argued that Henry could not establish an agency relationship between Flagstaff Hospital and Knoll. What duties did Flagstaff Hospital owe Knoll as an independent contractor? Did the court find enough evidence establish an agency relationship? [Loretta Henry/ Charles Arnold v. Flagstaff Medical, 212 Ariz. 365, 132 P.3d 304, 2006 Ariz. App. LEXIS 53, 476 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 11

Marsh & McLennan Companies is the largest provider of insurance brokerage services in the world. It holds itself out to its clients as a fiduciary that will act solely on clients' behalf in purchasing insurance policies for them. Starting in 1987, Emerson Electric Company hired Marsh to act as its fiduciary in procuring various insurance policies, such as excess liability, aircraft, and international. Emerson paid Marsh substantial amounts of money to recommend insurance policies that met its needs at the lowest possible price. Unknown to Emerson, Marsh embarked on a business plan in the early 1990s in violation of its fiduciary duties to Emerson: Marsh entered into agreements with insurance companies under which the insurers agreed to pay Marsh monies in consideration of Marsh's pledge to direct business to them. These agreements were referred to by various names such as placement service agreements or market service agreements. These documents were referred to as " kickbacks." At no time did Marsh's disclose the nature or extent of kickbacks that it was receiving. As a result of Marsh's breach of its fiduciary duties, Emerson paid an inflated price for its insurance policies. Additionally, Marsh directed Emerson to make its premium payments through Marsh itself, rather than directly to the insurance companies. The checks were made payable to Marsh. Unbeknownst to Emerson, Marsh did not immediately forward the premium payments to the insurers; instead, for a period of time before the insurance companies would be paid, Marsh would invest Emerson's premium payments to earn interest, which it retained as profit. In Marsh's 2003 Annual Report, it referred to this revenue item as " fiduciary interest income." Is this considered a breach of fiduciary duty? Why or why not? [ Emerson Electric Co. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies ( Mo. Ct. App 2011). Case No.