In Van Daele v. Waring House et al, 2025 ONCSC 6687, the Court considered whether an event insurer owed a duty to defend and indemnify a wedding venue that had been named as an additional insured under a couple’s event insurance policy.

Background

The plaintiff, a professional photographer, alleged that he was injured in a trip and fall accident while attending a wedding at The Waring House Restaurant and Inn. He had been hired by the bride and groom to photograph their wedding and claimed he fell due to an uneven ramp or pathway on the premises. The plaintiff commenced an action against The Waring House and individuals involved in its operation, alleging negligence related to the unsafe condition of the pathway.

The Waring House initiated a third party claim against Co-operators General Insurance Company (operating as Duuo Event Insurance) seeking a declaration of defence and indemnity. The event insurance policy named the groom as the insured and listed The Waring House as an additional insured, but only with respect to liability arising from the groom’s hosting of the event or his “activities and operations.” The terms “hosting,” “activities,” and “operations” were not defined in the policy. 

The threshold issue before the Court was whether Co-operators owed the defendants a defence and indemnity, i.e. whether the alleged accident arose out of the groom’s hosting of the wedding or his activities and operations, as required by the policy.

Law and Analysis

The Court applied the established principles of insurance policy interpretation, including the duty to defend test from Monenco and the guidance from Progressive Homes. The Court emphasized that the policy expressly limited coverage for additional insureds to liability arising out of the named insured’s hosting of the event or related activities and operations. The Court made it clear that the phrase “arising out of” requires more than a mere temporal or incidental connection and demands a proximate and meaningful causal link between the named insured’s activities and the alleged liability. 

The Court found that the plaintiff’s injuries were alleged to have resulted from a pre-existing defect in the premises. It further found that the groom had no control over, and no responsibility for, inspecting or maintaining the ramp or pathway. The plaintiff was not actively photographing the wedding at the time of the fall, and the venue itself acknowledged that responsibility for identifying trip hazards rested solely with it, not with the wedding couple. 

As a result, the only connection between the accident and the wedding was the plaintiff’s presence at the venue, which the Court found to be insufficient to trigger coverage and allow The Waring House to pass its own negligence liability onto the wedding couple. 

Key  Takeaway

This decision reinforces an important principle for venues, insurers, and event organizers: being named as an additional insured does not provide blanket coverage. Where coverage is limited to liability arising from a named insured’s activities, courts will require a real and proximate causal connection, not merely that an injury occurred during an event. Premises-related risks that remain within the venue’s exclusive control will not be transferred to an event insurer absent clear and express policy language.