5. This provision, however, does not place any obligation on Chase to pay flood insurance premiums or to notify Blackstone if her flood insurance is cancelled. Plaintiff does not quote “Section 5” in her complaint or provide “Section 5” as part of the mortgage excerpts. Further, the additional allegations in the complaint do not suggest that Chase undertook a contractual duty to pay flood insurance premiums or to notify plaintiff if she did not have flood insurance. Compare Whitfield, 252 Fed. Appx. at 656 (affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment because the terms of the mortgage contract did not require the mortgagee to maintain additional flood insurance on plaintiffs home), and Morris v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 06-5472, 2008 WL 638615, at *3-4 (E.D.La. Mar. 5, 2008) (<HOLDING>), with Rentrop v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins.
holding that none of the physicians insurers had a duty to provide coverage since the effects of the negligence first manifested themselves prior to the coverage periods of any of the three policies 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 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 the plain terms of the mortgage did not demonstrate any contractual duty on the mortgagee to procure coverage on plaintiffs property or to notify plaintiff of lapse in coverage holding that the employer breached a duty to its employees by allowing their insurance coverage to lapse without giving them reasonable notification of the lapse