agents or brokers concerning the options available to them.” Strube, supra, 277 N.J.Super. at 241, 649 A.2d 624. In a series of decisions responding to those complaints, this Court, and the Appellate Division, held that insurance agents and brokers had a duty to exercise reasonable skill and good faith in advising their customers about UIM coverage and about their coverage selection options. See Weinisch v. Sawyer, 123 N.J. 333, 340, 587 A.2d 615 (1991); see also Avery v. Arthur E. Armitage Agency, 242 N.J.Super. 293, 301-02, 576 A.2d 907 (App.Div.1990) (discussing various initiating inquiries by insured that might trigger duty to provide advice concerning availability of additional UIM coverage options); Pinto v. Garretson, 237 N.J.Super. 444, 449-50, 568 A.2d 119 (App.Div.1989) (<HOLDING>); Sobotor v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
holding insurance company that sent coverage selection form and buyers guide had no further duty to communicate directly with insured to advise of importance of notice or recommend purchase of additional coverage holding insurance agent has no duty to advise insured of amount of insurance necessary to cover all potential losses holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage holding that insurance agents owe no duty to procure coverage for persons with no written or oral agreement with the agent to procure coverage or who have never contacted the agent about insurance coverage holding that insurance company operating under a reservation of rights had the right and the duty to control the defense until such time as it was determined that it had no liability insurance coverage