“I don’t.” Why an insurer didn’t have to defend a wedding venue against a slip-and-fall lawsuit

A wedding venue listed as a named insured on a groom’s policy is not entitled to a defence by the groom’s insurer for a slip-and-fall injury sustained by the wedding photographer, since the injury had no connection to the groom’s ‘activities’ or ‘operations’ in hosting the wedding, the Ontario Superior Court has ruled.

“In this case, the statement of claim does not contain any allegations that the [wedding photographer’s] injuries were caused or contributed to by the activities or operations of the named insured in their hosting of the event other than being present on the premises to photograph the wedding,” the court ruled in a decision released in November.

“When the pleadings are read reasonably, it is clear that any liability would arise from pre-existing defects in the [wedding venue’s] ramp/pathway that caused an unsafe condition over which the named insured [the groom] had no control or responsibility.”

The groom, Jonathon Singh, and the bride, Stacy Barroso, signed an events service agreement with The Waring House Restaurant and Inn to host their wedding on Aug. 28, 2021. The agreement required the bride and groom to obtain event insurance.

Singh got event insurance from Duuo Event Insurance, underwritten by Co-operators General Insurance Company.

The venue owner, The Waring House, was added to the policy as an additional insured, “but only with respect to the activities and operations conducted by you [Singh],” the policy states.  

In addition, the policy reads, “[w]e will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally liable to pay as compensatory damages because of unintentional bodily injury or property damage originating at the covered location during the policy period only in relation to the hosting of the event covered.” [Emphasis added.]

The policy terms ‘activities,’ ‘operations,’ and ‘hosting’ are not defined, as the court noted.

In other news: How to prevent undervaluation of your clients’ homes

Shawn Van Daele, the photographer, was injured at the wedding event. In his statement of claim, he says he tripped and fell when he was walking along a ramp/pathway that ran alongside the restaurant on the premises.

In his statement of claim, which had not been proven in court, Van Daele alleges his fall occurred due to an unsafe condition — specifically, the uneven surface of the ramp/pathway.

Van Daele “was not actively engaged in photographing the wedding at the time he tripped and fell,” the court found.

As an additional insured on the groom’s policy, The Waring House made a third-party claim against Co-operators General Insurance Company (operating as Duuo Event Insurance).

Waring House argued Co-operators had a duty to defend and indemnify the venue in Van Daele’s claim.

But the court found no causal connection between Van Daele’s fall and any of the groom’s ‘activities’ or ‘operations’ while hosting the wedding.

At examinations for discovery, for example, a representative of The Waring House confirmed the bride and groom were not expected to inspect the premises before the event, the court found.

Why innovative customer experience will define the future of personal auto insurance Image

Insights Paid Content

Why innovative customer experience will define the future of personal auto insurance

Technology is helping insurers reimagine how they support personal auto customers — and it starts the moment a collision is reported, say experts at Accident Support Services International.

By 

Sponsor Image

Plus, the venue confirmed the bride and groom were not expected to be responsible for alerting The Waring House of any potential trip hazards.

Moreover, the Waring House representative said the venue was solely responsible for inspective pathways to identify potential trip hazards on the premises.

In other words, the fall did not arise out of anything within the wedding couple’s control to prevent.  

“The accident is not alleged to have occurred while the [photographer] was engaged in photographing the wedding,” the court ruled. “Similar to the conclusions reached in cases relied on by Co-operators, I find that the [photographer’s] mere presence at the property to work at the wedding is insufficient to establish the required connection to the ‘activities or operations’ of the hosting of the wedding.”

David Gambrill

David has twice served as Canadian Underwriter’s senior editor, both from 2005 to 2012, and again from 2017 to the present.