In Blair v. Ing, 96 Haw. 327, 31 P.3d 184 (2001), the plaintiffs sued Thayer for professional negligence and breach of implied contract. The Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that "because the negligence claim in this case was derived from the alleged implied contract and was inextricably linked to the implied contract claim by virtue of the malpractice suit, we hold that it is impracticable, if not impossible, to apportion the fees between the assumpsit and non-assumpsit claims." Id. at 333, 31 P.3d at 190. The two claims for relief alleged in the complaint against one defendant (the accountant) were: (1) breach of implied contract and (2) negligence. Both claims were premised on the accountant's failure to take advantage of estate planning techniques while providing tax return preparation services. Id. The court concluded that the negligence claim arose "out of the alleged implied contract . . . . and observed that without the implied contract, which could create a cognizable duty, Plaintiffs would have no negligence claim." Id.