Summary judgment for defendant-insurer in action alleging that plaintiff was entitled to policy benefits following a fire loss at its premises, is affirmed, where: 1) the evidence showed as a matter of law that the insurance broker that prepared the insurance application for plaintiff indicating the premises were equipped with sprinklers, was not an actual or ostensible agent of defendant-insurer; 2) the evidence showed that plaintiff did not maintain a sprinkler system as required under the policy; and 3) plaintiff therefore failed to meet its burden of showing that triable issues of material fact exist with respect to its claims for declaratory relief and negligence.