The motion court properly dismissed the action as against defendants-respondents, operating as an independent insurance agency, on the ground that they had no duty to recommend flood insurance or to inspect the location of plaintiff's property to determine whether it was near a flood plain or swamp, where plaintiff neither specifically requested such insurance nor communicated the area's susceptibility to flood damage ( see, Wied v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 208 A.D.2d 1132). Plaintiff's request for "the best and most comprehensive coverage" did not trigger such a duty ( see, Chaim v. Benedict, 216 A.D.2d 347), nor did it relieve plaintiff of its obligation to read the policy, which contained an express exclusion for flood loss ( see, Rogers v. Urbanke, 194 A.D.2d 1024).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.