requests. See Carpenter, 135 Ohio App.3d 316, 733 N.E.2d 1196. Robson was not the named insured, did not have any discussions with Cadd regarding insurance coverage, and did not request Cadd to procure insurance coverage. Nor is there any evidence in the record indicating that Oliver put Cadd on notice that she purportedly wanted to procure the insurance for Robson’s benefit. See, by comparison, Minor v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 16, 675 N.E.2d 550, cited by the dissent, in which the mother and daughter both testified that they informed the agent that the daughter was to be a beneficiary of the policy. Thus, Robson cannot show that Cadd owed him a duty to procure the requested coverage. See, generally, Lu-An-Do, Inc. v. Kloots (1999), 131 Ohio App.3d 71, 721 N.E.2d 507 (<HOLDING>); Kungle v. Equitable Gen. Ins. Co. (1985), 27
holding that because exclusion was not provided to certificate holder terms of the certificate controlled holding that an insurance company that does not deliver a policy to a certificate holder is estopped from asserting exclusions contained in the policy but not revealed in the certificate holding that an insurance agent who does not procure the insurance coverage requested breaches his or her duty suggesting a negligence claim holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer 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