The Plaintiff commenced an action for damages after an alleged trip and fall at The Waring House Restaurant and Inn (“The Waring House”), where he had been hired as the photographer for a wedding.
The venue Defendants brought a Third Party Claim against Co-operators General Insurance Company (“Co-operators”), operating as Duuo Event Insurance, seeking a declaration that Co-operators owed them a duty to defend and indemnify in the main action.
The Defendants brought a summary judgment motion with respect to the Third Party Claim. The issue was whether the event insurance policy obtained by the groom extended coverage to The Waring House as an additional insured in relation to the Plaintiff’s claim.
Background
The underlying action arose from an incident that occurred at The Waring House during a wedding on August 28, 2021. The Plaintiff, Shawn Van Daele, had been hired as the photographer for the wedding.
Pursuant to the Events Service Agreement between the bride and groom and The Waring House, the couple was required to obtain event insurance.
The groom, Jonathan Singh, obtained event insurance through Duuo. The policy named Mr. Singh as the insured and listed The Waring House as an additional insured. The policy provided coverage for, among other things, bodily injury and property damage liability, and stated that the insurance extended to the additional insured only with respect to liability arising out of the named insured’s hosting of the event or the activities and operations conducted by the named insured.
In the main action, the Plaintiff alleged that he tripped and fell while walking along a ramp or pathway beside the restaurant on the premises. He claimed that the fall was caused by an unsafe condition, specifically an uneven walking surface.
It was undisputed that the Plaintiff was at The Waring House because he had been hired to photograph the wedding. However, he was not actively engaged in photographing the wedding at the time of the incident.
Position of the Parties
The Defendants took the position that, as an additional insured under the event policy, The Waring House was entitled to a defence and indemnity from Co-operators in the main action.
Co-operators denied coverage on the basis that the Plaintiff’s allegations did not arise from the activities, operations or hosting of the event by the named insured. Rather, Co-operators argued that the claim was fundamentally one of premises liability against The Waring House for an alleged unsafe condition on the property.
The Duty to Defend Analysis
In considering whether coverage should be extended to the Defendants, the court applied the “duty to defend” framework, being, if the pleadings allege facts which, if true, could require the insurer to indemnify the insured, then the insurer must defend. The court also noted that even where the pleadings are not perfectly drafted, a duty to defend may still arise if, on a reasonable reading, a covered claim can be inferred. This analysis did not help the Defendant venue.
The court pointed out that the Statement of Claim alleged that the Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the unsafe condition of the ramp or pathway. There were no allegations that the bride or groom created, contributed to or controlled that hazard. In fact, the discovery evidence confirmed that the wedding couple was not expected to inspect the premises or identify trip hazards, and that responsibility remained with The Waring House.
Considering the above, the court held that the claim did not arise from the named insured’s hosting activities.
“Arising Out Of” Requires a Causal Connection
The court also analyzed treatment of the phrase “arising out of” in the relevant contract. Relying on prior appellate authority, the court confirmed that this language requires more than a simple “but for” connection and requires a meaningful causal relationship.
Here, the temporal connection was not enough, as the Plaintiff was only at the venue because he had been hired to photograph the wedding. Rather, the court held that the real source of the alleged liability was the condition of the premises, not the hosting of the wedding. The Plaintiff’s presence at the wedding did not transform a premises liability claim into one arising from the insureds’ event operations.
The fact that the Plaintiff was not actively photographing the wedding at the time of the incident further weakened any argument that the loss was connected to the wedding activities themselves.
No Duty to Defend, No Duty to Indemnify
Because the allegations did not engage liability arising from the named insured’s activities or operations, the court held that Co-operators had no duty to defend and no duty to indemnify the venue Defendants.
Takeaways
This decision is a helpful reminder that being added as an additional insured under an event policy does not guarantee broad coverage for all claims connected in some way to the event.
Where coverage is limited to liability arising out of the named insured’s hosting, activities or operations, there must be a causal connection between the alleged liability and what the named insured actually did.
Read the decision here: Van Daele v. Waring House et al, 2025 ONSC 6687 (CanLII)
