A mortgagee brought suit against its mortgagor’s insurance agent, arguing that the insurance agent owed it a duty, as an additional insured under a policy of insurance, to procure a policy that provided sufficient insurance coverage to the subject premises. Rondiene E. Novitz and Harpreet Kaur successfully brought a motion to dismiss all claims against their client pursuant to CPLR 3211, arguing that under New York State law an insurance agent’s duty runs to its client only and not to any additional insured as there is no privity of contract from the imposition of liability. The court granted our motion, sidestepping a potential exposure in excess of $5 million.