Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling clarifies scope of additional insured coverage

A recent decision from Justice Muszynski of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered the scope of coverage available to an additional insured under an event insurance policy.

In Van Daele v. Waring House et al., 2025 ONSC 6687, the plaintiff, a wedding photographer, alleged that he suffered injuries when he tripped and fell on an uneven surface, ramp, or pathway at the wedding venue. The plaintiff commenced an action against the venue and various individuals involved in its operation. The venue had entered into an agreement with the bride and groom requiring them to obtain event insurance. The groom obtained the necessary insurance, which included Commercial General Liability, Tenants’ Legal Liability, and Host Liquor Liability, and named the venue as an additional insured.

The additional insured coverage was limited to liability arising out of the named insured’s “hosting” of the event and/or the named insured’s “activities and operations” for the event. These terms were not defined in the policy.

The coverage dispute

The defendants commenced a third party claim against the insurer seeking, among other things, declarations that the insurer owed them a duty to defend and indemnify in relation to the plaintiff’s claim. The defendants then moved for summary judgment.

The central question on the motion was whether, based on the pleadings, the plaintiff’s claim could potentially fall within coverage, such that the insurer owed the venue a duty to defend as an additional insured.

The court granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that there was no duty to defend or indemnify.

The court applied well-established principles of policy interpretation, including that an insurer must defend where the pleadings allege facts that, if proven, would require the insurer to indemnify the defendants, and that coverage may be triggered if a covered claim can be reasonably inferred from the pleadings.

“Arising out of” and the required causal connection

Critically, the court analyzed the degree of connectedness required for liability to “arise out of” the named insured’s hosting, activities, or operations. It cited with approval a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the phrase “arising out of” imposes a greater causal requirement than a simple “but for” connection. It requires an “unbroken chain of causation” and a connection that is more than “merely incidental and fortuitous.” There must be a “proximate connection” between the injury and the named insured’s activities.

On the facts pleaded, the court concluded that the necessary connection was missing. The pleadings did not allege that the named insured’s hosting or event-related operations caused or contributed to the fall, beyond the basic fact that the plaintiff was at the property because of the wedding. Mere presence at the venue for the wedding was insufficient to satisfy the requisite causal connection to the named insured’s activities or operations.

The case has important implications for both insurers and businesses seeking to protect themselves as additional insureds. While the legal principles in the decision are not novel, the court’s application of those principles in a context where the question of coverage for additional insureds frequently arises provides helpful clarification. In each case, the specific wording of the policy documents and pleadings must be carefully analyzed.