Neither an insurance agent nor an insurance company owes an insured or prospective insured a duty to tell the insured he needs other or additional insurance coverage unless (1) the agent misrepresents the nature, extent or scope of the coverage being offered or provided; (2) there is a request or inquiry by the insured for a particular type or extent of coverage; or (3) the agent assumes an additional duty by either express agreement or by holding themself out as having expertise in a given field of insurance being sought by the insured.  The insured’s non-specific request for the “best policy” and the agent’s response that the insurance purchased was a “full coverage” policy did not impose any duty of care on the agent or insurer to assure that the policy limit was high enough to cover the full cost of rebuilding the home when it was destroyed by a wildfire.  Though the Department of Insurance has promulgated regulations governing how insurers should compute full replacement cost limits if they volunteer to provide replacement cost coverage, those regulations cannot support a UCL claim since they were promulgated pursuant to the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Ins. Code 790 et seq.) for violation of which there is no private right of action.