Plaintiff sustained flood-related losses exceeding the limits of its flood coverage under the policy obtained for it by defendant insurance broker and now sues defendant in both tort and contract alleging that it failed to advise it properly respecting the amount of flood coverage to acquire. The complaint, however, should be dismissed in its entirety. No special relationship between the parties has been alleged that would support plaintiff's claim that defendant broker was under a common-law duty to advise it as to the amount of coverage it would be prudent to obtain and, in the absence of any allegation that plaintiff specifically requested coverage in an amount greater than that obtained by defendant or that it was expressly or impliedly agreed that defendant would undertake to provide risk management services to plaintiff, plaintiff has no cause of action against defendant for breach of contract ( see Murphy v. Kuhn, 90 N.Y.2d 266, 272-273).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.