Venue Waiver Nonsense

I've been photographing weddings for years. Well over a decade now. Hundreds of weddings.

I have never been asked to sign something like this. I told the client I will not sign it, and let her know (very nicely) why.

There was a thread from 2011 about this, and I did read it. I have NOT consulted a lawyer yet, but plan to do so if this venue digs in. I'm sending them my 2 million dollar commercial liability insurance information, and telling them that is sufficient. I will not bore you all with the entire contract, but here is the clause that sent up an enormous red flag:

I ______________________________ (Your Name), an authorized representative of ______________________________ (Your Company Name) hereby agree to waive any and all claims arising against (THE VENUE), the liability carrier of (THE VENUE), and any and all employees and representatives of (THE VENUE). This is a full waiver of all claims arising including negligent or intentional acts of any employee or representative of (THE VENUE). I further agree to hold (THE VENUE) harmless for any injury to myself, my employees or my equipment that may occur while I am on the property of (THE VENUE).

To say negligent and even purposeful acts are not something they will liable for is simply laughable. Rather than trouble my contracted client with my concern, I thought I would call the venue first to ask about it. They were as belligerent and obtuse on the phone as this waiver would make you think. They were intractable and curt, and when I said I was concerned this would jeopardize my client's wedding photography and my ability to fulfill my obligation to her, he said in a disdainful voice: "Okay."

End of conversation. So, I hung up.

I am putting this on the forum because I had difficulty finding threads on this topic. I expect that's because most venues aren't this ridiculous with their demands of photographers (this one even bars tripods, free standing lights, pole lights, stand-alone flashes, booths, printers, screens, monitors, projectors, and extension cords!). But, just in case anyone else is having this problem, I would love a more recent discussion on the forum about it.

I'm sending them my 2 million dollar commercial liability insurance information, and telling them that is sufficient

I am not familiar with the Anglo-American Legalese but assume: If you can't negotiate their BS away, maybe by using your client as leverage, you 'll get nowhere.

To me it seems: The venue has either no liability insurance of its own or zero interest in ever using it.

They might care about regular guests but apparently don't want to cover the additional, risk that you are, for them.

Your commercial liability insurance is meant to pay guests and waiters (& maybe even assistants) knocked out by your light stands. It won't pay legs and lenses you'll break slipped on the venue's banana peel. And even if your health and stuff might be insured your insurance could be tempted to sue the venue, so the venue will insist on you signing their waiver.

I have NOT consulted a lawyer yet, but plan to do so if this venue digs in

IDK what a lawyer could do besides assisting in modifying your small print with demands about working environments your clients have to provide (to stop them from booking unbearable venues).

I am not a lawyer, but have worked with some very good lawyers over the past 30+ years, and you should definitely talk to your lawyer and get real legal advice. That said, my wife has sold pottery at various fundraising events at schools, churches, ect, and we have been faced with pages of legalese in the form of a vender application. I am not really troubled by such waiver language since it is an extremely unlikely event to happen and that any issues would be covered by our health insurance and her business insurance. The language also does not exclude suing for losses caused by gross negligence and willful misconduct on the part of the venue.

While liability waivers do not really bother me, indemnification clauses are a red line for me and I never agree to those. An indemnification clause is when you agree to hold the venue harmless if they are sued for acts related to your activities. My objections are that the trigger events (your acts) are usually so broad that almost anything thing that may occur (your fault of not) could trigger the indemnification clause. Also, your business liability coverage will not protect you unless the venue is named as an additional insured on the policy (or rider to the policy). And the definition of indemnified parties is usually a long list of persons and entities who own or manage the venue, which would require that they all be named as additional insured.

As noted above, this isn't about your insurance coverage. It's about their insurance and their liability. Your going to see more and more of this.

There's really no reason to not to sign it. It's not likely to hold up in court if you are legitimately injured and it's their fault. These agreements are usually pretty easy to pierce and are really designed to avoid nuisance suits, not legit ones.

My humble question, why not just cross out the line intentional act by employees, initial the change, sign then send it back? My guess some corporate lawyer wrote it up to cta and it’s policy to get it signed wether the manager receiving it back has anymore discussion/ time to review is up in the air they may be dotting their i’s and have other work to do.

My other humble question why not specify in your contract that your client takes on all liability responsibilities that may occur at the location they’ve chosen?

Both are good questions. My first question to the venue was to allow me to write into the waiver that I was waiving the right to civil, but not criminal actions, and they said the contract could not be altered in any way. Very gruffly. The groom called them and they were nasty to the groom, too. I later found out the venue tried to charge the couple for things at the venue that the couple was not using, and that they refused to allow a projector in to project something onto the cake. The couple is completely on my side in this, and I plan on reviewing the venue to warn others about it once the wedding is done.

With respect to your second question, I did actually put something like that in my contract. Under the Failure to Perform clause, it states: "In the event Provider is unable to perform due to the interference of a third party refusing Provider access, Provider shall not be liable for any missed photographs and no refund to Client shall be issued."

All of that said, I have to consider who is getting hurt by this venue barring my access, and the application of such a clause: the couple. The likelihood that something would happen to me is pretty slim, and I am risking the experience of my client by refusing to sign this ludicrous waiver. After a long conversation with the groom, who is already really angry with the venue over a number of things, I decided for this one time I would sign the waiver. I will never take a wedding in the future where the couple is working with this particular venue.

I signed the waiver with V.C. and then my name. That stands for vi coactus which means "constrained by force." In other words, I am being forced to sign this waiver under duress for extreme economic pressure. It essentially means that if a court action were to take place, that would be factored in. Additionally, the likelihood that this waiver could be legally upheld given its vague blanket definitions is pretty slim at best.

This poor couple are fellow Disney aficionados who are used to being treated kindly and with attention to a positive customer service experience. They unfortunately chose a venue with the opposite philosophy. I have a feeling I'll be wearing my psychotherapist hat that day. :-(

Didn't read any of this thread until your response #6 above. Having read it all now I wanted to add -

I think that you've made a sensible and prudent Business choice - simply based on the premises of:

> extreme customer service to Clients

> the unlikelihood of the events cited in that clause ever occurring, anyway.

***

Not sure about how it would pan out in a court in the USA, but considering that we have a similar Common Law heritage and out of idle curiosity I flicked this thread to my friend who is a Barrister: his simple response to the cited clause was "load of [garbage], impossible to hold up in court; it has way to many holes in it; in simple terms one can't make "a contract" to circumvent responsibilities and consequences based in tenet of common law."

WW

Hi William,

Yes, I think it is a better business decision. I'm going to carry a recording device on my person that day and record anything they say to me. I'm also going to be on the lookout for them harassing my clients, and video record those interactions.

I agree with your Barrister friend about the waiver's legal value being rather fecal. Nothing would hold up in court if truly tested. An earlier poster said this was likely meant to ward off frivolous lawsuits, which I get. But, this is symptomatic of a larger problem with these owners. There is a label for people like that here in the U.S. I don't want to get too graphic with my language, so I'll just say the label rhymes with douchebag.

The groom told me they yelled at a friend of his at a previous wedding because the guy took out a flask and drank from it. Yes, that's probably not good form, but the owner yelled at the guy in front of everyone.

Now, I own a flask, but of course I don't drink when I am working. I'm really temped to bring the flask and fill it full of water, just to troll the owner. I mentioned this as a joke to the groom, and he was all for it.

Oh, it's not just the USA.

'Backyard Lawyers' (meaning ill-informed, untrained, and non-versed in legal document construction) being usually some lower middle management office workers, are making up all sorts of "Legal Documents" here too. A recent popular foray is posting of "Contractual Obligations when Parking your Vehicle" - I now go to visit Office Works and park in what was once "Free Customer Parking" and it takes three hours to read the fine print before I park the car - including but not restricted to how they can clamp, tow or impound my vehicle should stay longer than the one hour limit, I understand they don't want their carpark full of 'non-customers' cars, but it does put real Customers, offside.

WW

I've been following this thread from the first posting, and I'm very impressed with the answers, and certainly sympathize, and agree with, the OP's path of dealing with the problem...bar one.

Having re-read the thread a couple of times, I simply cannot understand why the contractor/consultant ( the OP), and the clients did not simply shift their date to a more agreeable venue. I'm also a bit unsure that I might have missed something critical in the entire thread, because not one of the respondents have suggested that solution.

Is there a reason? Please explain.

Hi Danny,

A fair question. Their wedding is this coming September. The venue's ridiculous waiver was sent to the couple long after the venue was booked (as in, several months) and with very little time for the couple to find a different venue on a popular date. I doubt that was an accident on the venue's part. The couple would almost certainly lose their payments already given to the venue, too. The couple was caught between a rock and a hard place. If the venue barred me, the couple would lose their retainer with me while they scrambled to find another photographer, assuming they could even find one 1) with my experience level and 2) who would be willing to sign the venue's waiver.

So, I decided to acquiesce (sort of - see previous replies about posting under duress) and will make sure to let the world know (after the wedding, of course) about this venue's policies and attitude.

In the vast, vast majority of cases, the venue is the first thing a couple selects. That can even dictate their wedding date. Photography and DJ are typically next, but we are almost always booked after a deposit had been paid to a venue. So, couples are not going to easily be willing to switch a venue because they know they'll lose a huge deposit.

I am not a lawyer, but have worked with some very good lawyers over the past 30+ years, and you should definitely talk to your lawyer and get real legal advice. That said, my wife has sold pottery at various fundraising events at schools, churches, ect, and we have been faced with pages of legalese in the form of a vender application. I am not really troubled by such waiver language since it is an extremely unlikely event to happen and that any issues would be covered by our health insurance and her business insurance. The language also does not exclude suing for losses caused by gross negligence and willful misconduct on the part of the venue.

 

While liability waivers do not really bother me, indemnification clauses are a red line for me and I never agree to those. An indemnification clause is when you agree to hold the venue harmless if they are sued for acts related to your activities. My objections are that the trigger events (your acts) are usually so broad that almost anything thing that may occur (your fault of not) could trigger the indemnification clause. Also, your business liability coverage will not protect you unless the venue is named as an additional insured on the policy (or rider to the policy). And the definition of indemnified parties is usually a long list of persons and entities who own or manage the venue, which would require that they all be named as additional insured.

When I was in business in NYC, I did service and installation work of fire alarm equipment in high rise office buildings. Standard releases were required. I had to provide a million in liability and property damage. My broker had to furnish a Certificate of Insurance that showed I had the insurance. It also had to indemnify the building owners on the Certificate. My broker would automatically forward the certificates to the owners through the building manager. This was standard practice and not a big deal. There were no extra charges for the indemnification. Check with your insurance broker to see how to handle it. You may find it as simple as we did in my industry.

When I was in business in NYC, I did service and installation work of fire alarm equipment in high rise office buildings. Standard releases were required. I had to provide a million in liability and property damage. My broker had to furnish a Certificate of Insurance that showed I had the insurance. It also had to indemnify the building owners on the Certificate. My broker would automatically forward the certificates to the owners through the building manager. This was standard practice and not a big deal. There were no extra charges for the indemnification. Check with your insurance broker to see how to handle it. You may find it as simple as we did in my industry.

Were you asked to sign a waiver that actually said you could not sue over issues involving negligence or intentional acts? I doubt it.

I have commercial liability insurance (2 million worth) and this has nothing to do with that. The venue forced me to sign their own waiver, which without they would prevent me from entering the premises to photograph my client's wedding. These are not the same situations.

And, yes, my insurance company named the venue as additional insured for this event. That's standard operating procedure.

Michael,

Thanks for a complete explanation. I have very little experience with reserving venues ( it's been years since all of my kids have been married), and no experience at all as a consultant/contractor.

I'll try to make sure that I remember this scenario the next time I make a reservation, and to see and sign off on all contract conditions before I plant the deposit. Would that have avoided this bad experience?

D.

I'll try to make sure that I remember this scenario the next time I make a reservation, and to see and sign off on all contract conditions before I plant the deposit. Would that have avoided this bad experience?

I don't know if this was part of the venue's contract with the couple or not. They could have said something as vague as "vendors must comply with venue policies" and just left it at that. Their particular waiver is pretty much unique across the hundreds of venues at which I have photographed weddings over the years. So, I don't think it is unreasonable to think the couple had no idea this would be a problem when they booked.

The only way I can see to help others avoid similar encounters is to make sure there are very public-facing reviews outlining the venue's waiver demand, as well as indications of their lack of customer service-friendly approach, in as many places as possible where couples go to research venues.

. . . If the venue barred me, the couple would lose their retainer with me while they scrambled to find another photographer . . . [etc]

As a general comment and from my own Wedding and Portrait experience - a repetitive key issue for the Wedding Photographer (and other Service Providers) when there are multiple Service Providers at the same time for the same Client: the exact situation usually occurring at all Weddings - is that there is always a fine line between protecting your own Business from the silliness of the other Service Providers and risking damage to your own Business, by your own reaction or no reaction, resulting in putting the Client offside with YOU.

WW