Noreen Kemether and Ana Ciobanescu of MOODK’s Philadelphia office obtained summary judgment on behalf of their clients on a claim alleging professional malpractice in an insurance brokerage case. Plaintiff alleged that the client failed to procure existing structure coverage on an older, vacant warehouse undergoing extensive renovation, in the amount specifically requested by the Plaintiff. MOODK’s client worked with a wholesale broker to solicit quotes, and of several carriers solicited, only one carrier offered to quote the renovation project, and only offered existing structure coverage up to the purchase price, not on the alleged appraised value of the existing structure as requested by the Plaintiff. Several months into the extensive renovation project, the structure was destroyed in a fire and Plaintiff alleged the amount of existing structure coverage provided did not cover the value of the loss. During the course of litigation, the attorneys discovered that Plaintiff had actually shopped around for coverage with at least one other insurance agency, was offered a quote for existing structure coverage in the amount requested and declined the coverage due to the higher cost. The attorneys moved for summary judgment arguing that MOODK’s client had fulfilled their duty to Plaintiff and the Court agreed. The Court found that while the client was unsuccessful in obtaining the requested coverage, the steps taken to solicit the requested coverage were not inadequate or insufficient and dId not breach any duty owed.