Van Daele v. Waring House et al, 2025 ONSC 6687 (CanLII)
Reading time: 4 minutes (approx.)
By: Sarah Richard
In this case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed whether an event insurance policy obtained by the wedding hosts required Co-operators General Insurance Company to defend or indemnify the venue owner after a professional photographer was injured while working at the wedding.
The Plaintiff, the photographer, alleged that she tripped and fell on an uneven ramp or pathway at The Waring House Restaurant and Inn, sustaining injuries. The bride and groom who hosted the wedding had purchased event insurance, and the venue was listed as an additional insured under that policy.
The venue owners (the Defendants) argued that, as additional insureds, they were entitled to a defence and indemnity from Co-operators (Third Party) in relation to the photographer’s claim. They further sought reimbursement of their legal expenses, the right to appoint their own counsel, and aggravated and punitive damages arising from what they characterized as a wrongful denial of coverage.
Co-operators denied coverage, taking the position that the allegations in the statement of claim did not arise out of the activities or operations of the named insureds in hosting the wedding, as required by the policy.
In interpreting the policy, the court emphasized that coverage for an additional insured was expressly limited to liability arising out of the named insureds’ activities in connection with hosting the event. This required a real and proximate connection between the alleged liability and those hosting activities.
The court found that the plaintiff’s injuries were allegedly caused by a pre-existing defect in the ramp or pathway on the premises, a condition over which the wedding hosts had no control and for which they bore no responsibility. The fact that the photographer was present at the venue to photograph the wedding was not sufficient to establish the necessary causal link between the hosts’ activities and the alleged injury.
As a result, the court concluded that the policy language was clear and unambiguous and did not trigger a duty on Co-operators to defend or indemnify the venue owner in the underlying action. Because the insurer’s denial of coverage was justified, the claims for aggravated and punitive damages could not succeed. The court dismissed those claims and reserved the issue of costs, encouraging the parties to attempt to reach an agreement or, failing that, to make written submissions on costs.
