Counterclaim-defendants, as the insurance broker for the proposed insured, owed the insured, not counterclaim-plaintiff insurers, a duty of care (see, Am. Motorists Ins. v. Salvatore, 102 A.D.2d 342, 345). In any event, the brokers did not possess knowledge superior to that of the insurers, and the brokers' assertion that the new account would be profitable and would double the brokers' account with the insurers was nonactionable opinion or mere puffery (see, Jacobs v. Lewis, 261 A.D.2d 127). The insurers' failure to conduct their own thorough investigation into the financial stability of the proposed insured further precludes their claim of detrimental reliance on the purportedly inadequate investigation by the brokers (see, id.).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.