In Van Daele v. Waring House et al., a couple purchased an event insurance policy from Co-operators Insurance for their wedding day. The policy extended coverage to the wedding venue for claims arising from the couple’s “activities and operations.” The couple hired a photographer for their wedding, and while he was at the venue he tripped on an uneven surface, injuring himself. The photographer brought a claim against the venue, and the venue sought a defense and indemnity under the couple’s policy with Co-operators, which was denied. The venue issued a Third-Party Claim against Co-operators for a declaration of coverage and eventually brought a motion for summary judgment. The venue argued that the photographer was only at the premises because he was hired to be there by the couple. Co-operators argued that the allegations in the photographer’s claim had nothing to do with the couple and alleged that the fall occurred as the result of an “unsafe condition” at the venue.
The Honourable Justice Muszynski agreed with Co-operators and found that no coverage was owed to the venue under couple’s policy. In reaching her decision, Justice Muszynski adopted the causation test from the BC Court of Appeal in Vernon Vipers Hockey Club v. Canadian Recreation Excellence (Vernon), finding that the phrase “arising out of Named Insured’s operations” imposes a greater causal link than a simple “but for” test, requiring “an unbroken chain of causation” and a connection that is more than “merely incidental or fortuitous.”
This decision reinforces the principle that requests for defense and indemnity should start with a detailed reading of the allegations in a Statement of Claim and offers guidance for interpreting a commonly used piece of policy language.
2025 ONSC 6687 (CanLII) | Van Daele v. Waring House et al | CanLII
