Fortuity - Canadian Insurance News and Trends - March 2026

In Van Daele v. Waring House et al, 2025 ONSC 6687, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that a wedding venue was not entitled to defence or indemnity under an event insurance policy as an additional insured, in respect of a bodily injury suffered by the wedding photographer.

Background

A professional photographer was hired to photograph a wedding at the Waring House Restaurant and Inn (Waring House). Pursuant to an Events Service Agreement, the bride and groom obtained event insurance naming the groom as the named insured, and the Waring House as an additional insured (the Policy). The Policy included coverage for Commercial General Liability, Tenants’ Legal Liability & Host Liquor Liability. The Policy limited additional insured coverage to liability "arising out of" the named insured's "hosting" of the event and "activities and operations" conducted in connection with the wedding. The terms in quotes were not defined in the Policy.

The plaintiff alleged he sustained injuries when he tripped and fell on an uneven ramp or pathway alongside the restaurant. Notably, he was not actively photographing the wedding at the time of the incident. The Waring House confirmed at discovery that the bride and groom had no responsibility to inspect the premises or identify hazards; instead, the Waring House was solely responsible for maintaining safe pathways.

When the plaintiff commenced an action against the Waring House for bodily injuries from the fall, the Waring House issued a third-party claim against the event insurer seeking a declaration that the insurer owed it a duty to defend and indemnify under the Policy. The Waring House argued it was an additional insured under the Policy. The insurer argued that the claim did not arise from the named insured's “activities and operations conducted” nor from their hosting of the event, and therefore fell outside the scope of additional insured coverage.

The Court’s findings

The Court applied the well-established principles governing the duty to defend: an insurer must defend where the pleadings allege facts that, if proven, would require the insurer to indemnify the insured for the claim. If the pleadings do not precisely frame whether the claims are covered by a policy, the insurer’s obligation to defend will be triggered where, on a reasonable reading of the pleadings, a claim within coverage can be inferred. The Court also applied the well-established principles of insurance policy interpretation, confirming that it should give effect to the clear language of the policy if the language is unambiguous. If there is ambiguity, courts should “prefer interpretations that are consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties” and “avoid interpretations that would give rise to an unrealistic result”.

In this case, the critical issue was the meaning of "arising out of" the named insured's activities and operations. The Court confirmed that “arising out of” imposes a causal requirement greater than a simple “but for” test. It requires:

• an "unbroken chain of causation" between the named insured's activities and the injury;
• a connection that is "more than merely incidental or fortuitous"; and
• a "proximate connection," more than mere temporal coincidence.

The Court endorsed a practical test: the "arising out of" question can be addressed by asking "why did the additional insured's liability arise?"

The Court found that the Statement of Claim contained no allegations that the plaintiff's injuries were caused or contributed to by the activities or operations of the named insured’s hosting of the wedding, other than the plaintiff's mere presence on the premises to photograph the event. When the pleadings were read reasonably, it was clear that any liability would arise from pre-existing defects in the ramp or pathway that caused an unsafe condition, which were beyond the named insured’s (the groom) control or responsibility. The accident was not alleged to have occurred while the plaintiff was photographing the wedding. The court held that the plaintiff's mere presence at the property to work at the wedding was insufficient to establish the required connection to the "activities or operations" of hosting the wedding.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the insurer did not owe the Waring House a duty to defend or indemnify in the underlying action.

Key takeaways

“Arising out of” a named insured’s “operations” or “activities” requires a proximate causal connection: This language imposes a more demanding standard than a simple "but for" test. The injury must be causally connected to the named insured's activities or operations, not merely temporally coincident with them.  

Mere presence at an event is insufficient to trigger coverage: The fact that a claimant was at a venue for the purpose of attending or working at an insured event does not, by itself, establish the necessary nexus between the claim and the named insured's activities. There must be a proximate connection between the alleged negligence and the insured's conduct in hosting or operating the event. 

Pre-existing property conditions may fall outside the scope of additional insured coverage: Where alleged liability arises from defects or hazards unrelated to the event itself, such as pre-existing structural or maintenance issues at a venue, the required causal link to the named insured's activities may be absent, particularly where the named insured has no control over those conditions.