reversed in part, and cause remanded. Kline, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. McFarland, J., concurs. 1 . Oliver subsequently remarried, and her current last name is Robson. However, we use Oliver because Oliver is the name that appears in the trial court record. And while the nature of her injury or damages is not clear, the parties have not addressed whether she suffered any compensable injury in fact. Therefore, neither do we. Kline, Judge, dissenting in part. {¶ 34} I respectfully dissent insofar as the majority affirms summary judgment against Robson on the claim of negligent procurement. In my view, there may be an issue of whether Cadd owed Robson a duty of care to procure insurance coverage. See Lu-An-Do, Inc. v. Kloots (1999), 131 Ohio App.3d 71, 76, 721 N.E.2d 507 (<HOLDING>); but, see, Minor v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1996),
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 an insurance agent who does not procure the insurance coverage requested breaches his or her duty suggesting a negligence claim 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 that insurance certificate holder could not maintain negligence action against insurer when certificate holder was not insurers customer did not discuss insurance coverage with insurer and did not make any specific request to procure insurance coverage