2 days ago
Till loss do us part: insuring wedding mishaps and contingencies
June 20, 2025 - When planning for the happiest day of their lives, to-be-wedded couples typically decide the guest count, entertainment options and whether to splurge on an open bar. Purchasing wedding insurance is probably the furthest from their minds.
But unexpected events happen. Large gatherings of celebratory people are prime spots for mishaps. So purchasing wedding insurance might add a little peace of mind to an otherwise exciting, but stressful day (and be well worth the investment).
There are different types of wedding insurance. Event postponement and cancellation insurance, for example, covers losses from delaying or calling off the wedding. Liability insurance covers the couple in the event someone is injured at their wedding and pursues a claim or sues them.
Where there is no wedding insurance, however, a couple's existing homeowners and auto insurance might not apply to cover injuries or property damage resulting from the wedding.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, many people did not contemplate event postponement and cancellation insurance for something other than bad weather, illness or injuries. Some couples who purchased wedding insurance before the pandemic were fortunate enough to recoup costs from delaying their wedding for a year (or several) due to social distancing guidelines.
Nowadays, event postponement and cancellation insurance for an unanticipated virus may be difficult to acquire. Many wedding insurers exclude health-related outbreaks or emergencies that would delay a wedding from the scope of offered coverage.
Depending on the venue, vendor or event package, some insurance might already be included in the couple's event. Wedding venues and vendors frequently have their own policies to protect them in case there are any unexpected losses or they are held liable for another's injuries or property damage.
While a vendor's policy may or may not include coverage for business losses or liabilities, those policies do not typically insure the couple. To be eligible for a property owner or vendor's insurance benefits, the couple must qualify as insureds under those policies. Insured status might not extend to a couple if the policy is intended to insure only business-related losses or liabilities.
Business liability policies often cover the company's officers, employees and even volunteer workers as insureds. Those policies typically do not provide liability coverage for customers renting the business' property.
To avoid losses due to an unexpected postponement or cancellation, it is probably best that the couple purchase their own insurance. Not all wedding policies are the same, so the couple should carefully assess the offered coverage and any limitations on what the insurance covers.
If the couple fails to purchase wedding insurance before the big day, what if someone is injured at their wedding and pursues an insurance claim or sues the newly married couple?
Insureds may look to their home insurance for liability coverage for damages arising from the venue's property conditions, such as a slip and fall. However, homeowners policies usually exclude liabilities occurring at non-insured locations rented to insureds.
As the California Supreme Court explained in the 1986 decision, Preston v. Goldman, "Generally speaking, the personal liability provisions of a homeowner's policy bind the insurer to pay damages for which the insured shall become liable as a result of accidents in and around his home."
In the 1983 case, Safeco Ins. Co. v. Hale, a California appellate court recognized that homeowners policies' other locations exclusion applies to injuries arising from conditions of premises the policy does not insure. The court interpreted "premises" to mean "the land and more or less permanently affixed structures contained thereon. It does not contemplate easily movable property which may be located on the property at a given time or even on a regular or permanent basis." Based on this definition, a slip and fall on the rented dance floor could be barred from coverage under an "other locations" exclusion.
In contrast, the North Carolina Court of Appeals refused to apply a homeowners policy's "other locations" exclusion to bar coverage for guests injured at a warehouse the insured rented to host his birthday party. In the 2004 case, Erie Ins. Exchange v. Szamatowicz, the insured rented a warehouse approximately 20 miles away from his home to celebrate his birthday with over 100 guests. A fire broke out at the warehouse and some of the insured's guests sued him.
The Szamatowicz court held that the warehouse did not fall under the policy's "other locations" exclusion because the warehouse was used in connection with the "insured location" — the insured's home. The insured decided to have his birthday party at the warehouse instead of his home to accommodate the large number of guests and to not disturb his infant son.
This North Carolina decision may not be followed by courts in other jurisdictions. Birthday parties are often hosted at home, and the warehouse was used in lieu of the insured's home, not in connection with the home. Would a court apply the "other locations" exclusion if the guests were injured at a rented wedding venue?
If a guest slips on the dance floor and sues the venue — and the venue cross-complains against the couple — would the couple's homeowners policy cover the cross-complaint? The couple signed a contract promising to indemnify the venue for liabilities arising from their wedding. Many homeowners policies exclude liability assumed by the insured under any contract or agreement.
Another potential wedding-related liability issue is if guests have too much to drink and get into car collisions while driving.
Homeowners insurance typically excludes liabilities, such as others' bodily injury or property damage, arising from the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. Most motor vehicle exclusions in homeowner policies broadly exclude liability based on an insured's negligent supervision or entrustment of any person using any motor vehicle.
For example, a homeowners policy's negligent supervision or entrustment exclusion would apply if a hired bus driver had too much to drink and then drove guests home after an open bar reception. The driver crashes, and guests riding in the bus are injured and sue the couple. A lawsuit alleging the couple is liable for the collision based on alleged negligent supervision of the bus driver or negligent entrustment of the rented bus to the driver (the couple hired the driver who got inebriated at the open bar reception and drove guests home) would be excluded under the policy.
A couple's personal auto insurance might not cover their guests or vendors' auto collisions resulting from their wedding, either. The guests or vendors decide to drink and drive their own vehicles, and injure others in a collision. If the guests or vendors are sued and seek coverage for the lawsuit under the wedding couple's auto policy, the guests or vendors might not qualify as insureds and their vehicles might not qualify as insured vehicles.
A pre-wedding purchase of event insurance that includes liability coverage might be the best solution for many of the things that can go wrong at a wedding celebration.
Couples should not rely on their existing insurance policies to cover potential losses or claims related to their wedding.
As part of the wedding planning, it would be prudent to buy wedding insurance for any unanticipated events or losses that may arise. Just in case there are more than just wedding bells ringing in the air — like, God forbid, an ambulance siren.
Erin Mindoro Ezra is a regular contributing columnist on insurance coverage for Reuters Legal News and Westlaw Today.
