intended beneficiary. After all, he argues, that is why legislative and regulatory bodies pass laws and regulations requiring minimum amounts of insurance—to protect the public. But, imposing such a far-reaching duty on insurance agents “would impose on agents a duty to a vast number of non-elients—literally all who reside in or travel in this state.” See Napier, 954 P.2d at 1395. This Court accepts that the statutes and regulations at issue—49 U.S.C. § 31139(b)(2), 49 C.F.R. §§ 387.7 & 387.15, and Ohio Admin. Code § 4901:2-5-02— have a public protection purpose. However, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant violated these laws and regulations; an insurance agent is not the person upon whom the statutes and regulations impose specific duties. See Saylab, 332 F.Supp.2d at 144 (<HOLDING>). Finally, this Court must recognize what has
holding that breach of a statutory standard creates liability to innocent third parties who come within the protection of the statute only where breached by the person upon whom the statute imposes specific duties holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute holding regulation imposing general safety requirement upon employers with no specific requirements or duties failed to establish third prong of deliberate intent statute recognizing the principle that gives precedence to the terms of the more specific statute where a general statute and a specific statute speak to the same concern holding that the pslra imposes a more rigorous pleading standard than applied by any of the courts of appeals prior to the enactment of the statute