Cancelling a wedding ... etiquette

[dave_thomas10]

<p>Hey everyone,<br>

I find myself in an awful situation. I booked a wedding in L.A a number of months ago. I'm a Canadian with a Canadian registered company - no work permit/visa or any of that helpful stuff ... I've shot a handful of U.S weddings and have never had an problems ... until now. The wedding is in 2 weeks. Yesterday the B+G's wedding planning company informed me that I need to provide Proof of Insurance $1,000,000 liability to shoot at their venue. My Canadian Ins Co. will not cover me south of the border. Of all the other Ins Co's I've contacted only 2 will insure a photo company in the U.S ... Statefarm quoted me at $800/year ... I requested a short term policy to cover just the weekend I will be in L.A ... upon investigation of the Venue the broker discovered a large number of fraudulent claims they have made - and denied me coverage outright based on that info. The only other insurance company that is able to fit needs has a policy for 850.00/year with no option to cancel in that first year ... or 600.00 for a short term policy - I have not provided any info on the venue yet - but more then likely they're going to come up with the same info as statefarm did and deny. <br>

I've been in contact with the Wedding Planners over the last 5 months - I specifically asked them if there was any information that I needed to know that might impede my ability to complete the job - they're answer was "no". <br>

In the event I am able to get coverage - should I bill the B+G? Is that tasteless? If I cannot and am forced to cancel are they entitled to a full refund? I know its the right thing to do ... but I've already booked flights/hotels/rental cars and I'm sure they will nail me for cancellation fees. To make matters worse the Brides brother has booked me for his Wedding in Chicago the following weekend ... all the same family members will be at both events - talk about awkward. <br>

If you were in my situation (or have been) how would you proceed? </p>

 

[bobcossar]

<p>See if PPOC or PPA might have a coverage solution for you. If not, and you are stuck in the situation then I think you are obligated to refund all monies received and hope that you don't get sued. Perhaps you might be able to post a short term bond as security....worth asking.....best of luck....Robert</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I'm afraid, under the circumstances, I would book the lowest cost short term policy and eat the cost. While it isn't exactly your fault things have come to this state, it is theoretically your responsibility to know whether you can cover an event. In any case, none of it is the clients' fault or lack, so they are not liable in any way on this matter, IMHO. It isn't the Wedding Planner's responsibility either.</p>

<p>Also IMHO, it would be bad if you cancelled, and yes, I would refund them fully. When is the wedding? The shorter the time between now and the wedding the worse it is. Even if it were a year ahead, it would still be bad to cancel and force both clients to have to find another photographer, unless you provided one in the U.S. yourself. Not to mention the damage to your reputation.</p>

[dave_thomas10]

<p>The wedding is 2 weeks from tomorrow! I was just informed of this request yesterday. I've shot 100+ weddings and this is the first I have ever been asked to provide this. No excuse I know. But still a tough pill to swallow.</p>

<p>Nadine, I tried to book the short term policy - but once I provided info on their particular venue I was denied based on that venues reputation. I'm sure its going to be the same outcome no matter who I deal with. My only option is to avoid providing any info on that venue all together which will result in close to 1,000 for coverage that in effect I will use once. Reputation or not - I cannot justify eating this cost on the job.</p>

<p> </p>

[maile_lani]

<p>I just have basic liability insurance with state farm. I have some extra equipment insurance, but the liability insurance itself costs me about $35 a month... I think with my equipment I'm at around $50 a month. Most venues in california require that the photographer have some sort of liability insurance. I'm not sure why they're quoting you $800 a year! If you message me I'll send you the contact info for my insurance agent :) He's great!</p>

[dave_thomas10]

<p>Maile, everything is more expensive in Canada! - I tried to go through an American State Farm agent and they will not insure a Canadian with a Canadian registered company ... they told me I'd need to sign on with an agent up here. </p>

[Mike Howard]

<p>Well, Dave, you have just learned a valuable lesson. Work permits, Visas, and Insurance are mandatory things when doing business across borders. I have harped on this several times in these forums. I have had many people tell me I'm nuts, just call yourself a tourist, etc, etc.</p>

<p>I think maybe your best solution, if you are serious about maintaining reputation and integrity, is to hire a local, US photographer to do the event in your stead. Sub-contract, if you will. Hopefully the contract you wrote with the client has a clause allowing that in sticky situations. If not, call the client, explain what you have learned about the venue and insurance, and let them know you are doing everything you can to get a local photog to do the event.</p>

<p>I wish you the best. It sounds like you are really trying to be honest and up front about things...but you have VERY little time.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Dave - </p>

<p>Doesn't really help - but are the wedding planners from LA or are they out of towners too? It is possible, though not likely, that they didn't know about the insurance requirement until this week. </p>

<p>It is becoming far more common for venues, even parks and outdoor ones, to require insurance coverage by the photographer. I have mine through State Farm also - and yep - no where near the $850 mark. </p>

<p>What I would do - is to take the $600 short term policy and hope they don't ask what venue you're at. Chances are you are going to have to name the venue as a certificate holder or whatever the correct term is - basically it says that your insurer will deal with the venue. Then the company will know and probably check out the database. Although I've never had a problem at any venue... </p>

<p>If the short term policy declines you - then call the B/G and their wedding planners right away. Get all parties on the phone. Explain to them all that you tried to get insurance but were unable to due to the number of false claims made by the venue - Then explain to them that if you were to shoot without insurance at that venue - you could lose a lot more than them as clients. (Let's not forget that you posted on a google able board that you are a Canadian working in the U.S. without permits - twice in 2 weeks.) </p>

<p>Since the wedding is so close - I'd be looking for LA Based Photographers who have insurance, who'd be willing to sub-contract the wedding from you. You still have to let the couple know what is going on - and why someone else is shooting their wedding. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>Yesterday the B+G's wedding planning company informed me that I need to provide Proof of Insurance $1,000,000 liability to shoot at their venue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it's wedding planner's venue that's requiring the cover, and it's also that same venue that is causing the problem with the cover, then I think the first thing is to tell the bride and groom, and the wedding planner, about the problem, pointing out that both problems are being caused by the venue, and that maybe the venue/wedding planner should solve it between them. After all, planning the wedding should be part of the wedding planner's job!</p>

<p>Alternatively, maybe try a US insurance company instead of Canadian ones? To state the obvious, they should be used to insuring in the US. Maybe you can take out an insurance policy covering you eg. for a couple of weddings per year in the US that doesn't cover you in Canada. Surely that wouldn't be expensive?</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>Have you looked into the coverage available as a member of Photo.net. It says $175.00 for a years coverage. <a href="../info/photo_insurance_specs.pdf">http://www.photo.net/info/photo_insurance_specs.pdf</a></p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>My only option is to avoid providing any info on that venue all together which will result in close to 1,000 for coverage that in effect I will use once. Reputation or not - I cannot justify eating this cost on the job.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, you will use the coverage at least one other time. And it is coverage you <em>should</em> have anyway. You just need to find coverage with a company that will insure you south of the border. If State Farm will do it, get State Farm coverage. If doesn't need to be a "limited" policy, this is simply part of the cost of doing business so get the full year coverage. I don't think they could then deny coverage based on any one venue.</p>

<p>Other than that, I would sub-contract out with another local photographer... but explain the situation and still shoot the wedding yourself. I am sure there must be local studios with the requisite insurance coverage that hire out photographers to cover multiple events... you would just be one of these photographers only you are the one paying the studio!</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>I'd also hazard a guess that now you have been officially informed that the venue is black listed, if you do get coverage without disclosing that venue's name, your ins will be null and void and any claims will be denied if your lucky, the worst option is the ins co will come after you for repayment of any claims after the fact.</p>

<p>You wrote, "Yesterday the B+G's wedding planning company informed me that I need to provide Proof of Insurance $1,000,000 liability to shoot at their venue"</p>

<p>That sounds like the planners own the venue, yes? Have the planners purchase their own blanket policy.</p>

<p>I'd guess you had better inform the couple ASAP.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_thomas10]

<p>After much soul searching - I've decided to go forward and purchase the Liability Coverage for one year @ 850.00+tax. I've exhausted every possible Ins Co and this is the only possibility I have available. Now because of the fact that the Venue is 'blacklisted' and will cost me an additional 350.00 to purchase a policy specifically tailored to avoid that said venue - should I charge the B+G the difference? Or is this just Bad Karma? </p>

<p>If it were not for the Brides brothers wedding the following weekend I would for sure walk away from this one. </p>

[lornesunley]

<p>If the venue is "black listed" by more than one insurance company, I'd inform the bride and groom of that fact and walk away.... or have them buy the insurance, they will probably need it.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Dave - </p>

<p>Not sure I understand that last statement - You're paying an extra $350.00 to avoid the venue? or to insure that you have coverage for that venue? (more of a high risk premium?) </p>

<p>If the insurance company is saying that - yes we will insure you - and oh by the way if you shoot in venue x - then you need to pay us an additional $350 because of the risk involved with shooting there - then I'd be on the phone to the wedding planners and say - "Look my insurance company will cover me - but I need to pay an additional sum of $350 © to them because of the risk in shooting at your venue - which is an additional expense are you going to cover that for me?</p>

<p>Dave<br>

"</p>

[michaelchadwickphotography]

<p>Not sure if it's too late to chime in, but my insurance doesn't actually care about the venue. They have a blanket policy that does not require venue-specific listing for certificates of liability. Ask the insurance company about the Automatic Additional Insured endorsement GMI GL 180606. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>no work permit/visa or any of that helpful stuff</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you intend to work in a foreign country, there is no excuse for failing to get "helpful stuff" and, if your work will be under illegal conditions, there is no excuse for pursuing it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I cannot and am forced to cancel are they entitled to a full refund?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does your contract say there is no refund if you are unable to perform your job? Especially for foreseeable situations that is your fault such as this one? It would be foolish for anyone to sign such a contract, particularly with a service provider based in a foreign country.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>should I bill the B+G? Is that tasteless? should I charge the B+G the difference? Or is this just Bad Karma?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does your contract say you can tack on additional charges for foreseeable events such as this one?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>After much soul searching - I've decided to go forward and purchase the Liability Coverage for one year</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its troubling that you found it necessary to soul search on obtaining insurance. Not only is it a normal part of operating a business, in your case, you see fit to come to another country to perform work on multiple occasions while enjoying the benefit of protections from being in a foreign jurisdiction. I would advise people in the U.S. not to hire you without proof of current U.S. applicable insurance and all necessary documentation as to work status. Speaking of work status, if it is not legally sanctioned, it is possible an insurance policy will be void. This issue needs to be researched.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If it were not for the Brides brothers wedding the following weekend I would for sure walk away from this one. (<em>From another thread about this same situation</em>: I honestly can't justify doing the work taking this kind of loss to my bottom line."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With all due respect Dave, its time to start taking more responsibility for your actions.</p>

[rayt]

<p>Based on the venue being blacklisted I feel you should not even do the wedding. I suspect they are blacklisted by insurance companies for a reason. You run a risk of being sued for anything, even a spot on the carpet that you did not cause. They probably would sue everyone involved, caterer, flowers, decorations, photographer.</p>

<p>Or the other reason insurance companies do not like the venue is because it is not safe. It has problems that tend to lead to accidents It may be that they have been sued by others because the venue is "accident prone".</p>

<p>People and places that are high risk are avoided by insurance companies for a reason, you should also.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I have really no clue just how many weddings I've worked over the years in how many places, but it's "way-lots" and I have never run into or heard of anything this stupid as a blacklisted venue by insurance companies for a specific rider. I have also never paid anywhere near $850.00 for a year's coverage at $1M, let alone an extra $350 for same, possibly due to out of country, sounds like a scam. This whole thread sounds like Dave T didn't do his homework and now is figuring things out two weeks before the wedding and somehow is booking work across the Canadian line that's under the sheets or something. The couple is equally at fault for not doing their homework. In all, just another P-Net wedding mess. Also, wedding planners, this is definitely not their problem, unless they contracted you.</p>

[tallnbig68]

<p>My photographic background is not weddings; however being Canadian am very wary about doing work for pay beyond Canadian borders. There are far too many risks operating in a foreign land under foreign rules. Ideally any person working in a commercial self-employed trade should have as much insurance as possible. C$1-million liability is peanuts compared to what could happen to you in costs. How much liability do you have on your automobile if your insurance is not operated by the province? I carry at least C$4-million here in Ontario. Your photo business should be so likewise insured. In a society where litigation in the courts is common the more insurance you carry the better, and ensure the insurance covers you and your business in foreign lands.<br>

And I might add you have made note of your past operations out of Canada, without a work permit or similar. It would be advisable for you to connect your solicitor ASAP just in case your past record is questioned. Be wary, be very wary. You don't want to be denied entrance to a country, any country in the future.</p>

 

[johne37179]

<p>As someone who made a living for over a decade as an advertising photographer before becoming a lawyer and then a software company CEO for a company that detects frauds... my alarms all went off when the underwriters denied coverage for the venue based on a history of fraudulent claims. Remember the claim is first made against the insured -- in this case, YOU! Then the insured, you again, forwards the claim to the insurance company. I would think long and hard about taking this gig. It sounds like a can of worms best avoided entirely.</p>

[williamlewisphotography]

<p>Thanks for posting this question, this is good food for thought in respect to how one words their own contracts. My own contracts have always had stipulations for travel and overnight expenses, but this was truly an unforeseen expense. I wonder if the bride and groom also had to purchase an insurance policy, or was it part of their contract with the venue? Unfortunately in the United States, people love to sue<strong>.(The coffee was too hot and I spilled it on myself) </strong>I think you should contact the bride and groom and asked if they were required to have insurance. If I were on a jury I would think the person leasing the venue would be responsible for all guests and vendors. I would also expect the venue to show proof of insurance in case their coffee was too hot, or a slippery floor in their restroom.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I find myself in an awful situation. I booked a wedding in L.A a number of months ago. <em><strong>I'm a Canadian with a Canadian registered company</strong></em> - <em><strong>no work permit/visa or any of that helpful stuff ... </strong></em><br>

if you were in my situation (or have been) how would you proceed?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am an Australian and a Director of our Australian Registered Company. I have worked in: London, Hong Kong, Atlanta and Boston.<br>

I agree your situation is awful.<br>

And further I agree with John H – I'd like to add that IMO his commentary on the situation was quite gentle.</p>

<p>I am NOT a Drama Queen and I have certainly cut a few corners at times, to get the job done . . . BUT to cut to the chase - prima face is seems you could be operating illegally and on more levels than one and thus exposing yourself and your business to potentially extreme and long term consequences.<br>

IMO your subsequent actions, as you have described them here, have only exacerbated the risks to yourself and your business and dug the potential hole, deeper.</p>

<p>What do I suggest your situation? <br>

I suggest you explain the situation to the Bride and Groom, but before doing that, you should have a few local Photographers lined up to do the jobs (plural).<br>

Yes: you have a lot of work in front of you if you follow my advice.</p>

<p>On the hand you could just: “wing it”, with the insurance coverage you have attained and I expect that is what you’ll do – but that is a very bad choice, IMO – but that’s what you asked for – my opinion on what you should do.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>I think there is also the potential that in the event of a "claim," fraudulent or not, the venue is going to go after your customer. The customer is the one who brought you, the photographer who is potentially in violation of immigration laws, is perhaps dealing without insurance (your company could deny a claim, cancel the insurance, etc., if you weren't adhering to the terms of the contract). </p>

<p>While it seems that the primary reason countries regulate foreign businesses coming in is to protect local businesses, there's also the potential that if something goes wrong and the "foreign" participants skip the country, the local participants may have a great deal of difficulty in seeking legal recourse.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I think Craig hit the nail on the head as to why the insurance costs so much.</p>

<p>As far as the rest of the comments go ... well, there's a lot of assumptions at play here. For instance, whether or not this counts as a 'forseeable' issue. I suspect it's as forseeable as a tornado hitting Toronto right now. Sure it's possible when you consider how many there have been recently (New York is on watch tonight!), but it's not exactly the sort of thing that a reasonable person would take the time to plan for. Then again, I'm taking everything said at face value; for all I know, the story may have been massaged a bit.</p>

<p>Here's how I think this will go down: IF everything you said is 100% accurate (and be honest with yourself here), if there is a legal issue I suspect the courts would be on your side. While requiring insurance is reasonable, the situation under which you have to get that insurance is not. Also, I don't doubt that a judge would be swayed somewhat by the venue's unethical business practice of waiting until the last minute to tell you, "Oh, and by the way you'll need a lot of insurance, and no one is going to want to cover you." Good business ethics dictate that the venue would tell you that up front, before contracts are written up. Again, assuming what you said is 100%.</p>

<p>But guess what? That's totally irrelevant. If there was a lawsuit, it would come to light that you had no work visa, and you'd still go to jail or pay a massive fine regardless of whether or not you won the other case.</p>

<p>My guess is that considering the venue's proximity to Mexico, the reason they require so much insurance (and are blacklisted) is because if an incident occurs they plan on suing your butt off, expecting you to settle out of court to try and avoid getting nabbed on working without a permit.</p>