A neighborhood bar and grill sends food out two ways. On slow nights, a line cook drives nearby orders in his own car. On busy nights, a delivery app driver picks up the overflow. Bar and restaurant insurance may cover some claims related to those orders, but whether it does depends on the cause of the loss.
Food claims follow the meal wherever it goes. A customer who gets sick or has an allergic reaction after eating a delivered order can bring the same type of claim as a guest who ate at the bar. Products and completed operations coverage generally addresses injuries caused by food after it leaves the business, depending on policy wording.
RMS Hospitality Group includes products and completed operations coverage in its restaurant program. The program addresses claims such as food poisoning and other food-based reactions. For a client that delivers food, products and completed operations is the first coverage to check, because every delivered order is food consumed away from the premises.
Delivery adds a step between the kitchen and the customer, and that step can change who answers for a bad meal. Food safety vulnerabilities can arise in the last mile of delivery, including problems with temperature control, packaging, contamination, and allergens. When a problem arises after pickup, the restaurant and delivery provider may disagree about who is responsible. Identifying the source of the problem helps determine which party faces the claim and whose insurance may respond.
Liability rules make the handoff to the driver an important moment. In a defect claim over an allergic reaction, the injured person must show the food was defective when it left the restaurant’s control. For a restaurant client, the condition of the order at pickup becomes a key fact in the claim. If the food left the kitchen in safe condition, the restaurant has grounds to argue the problem arose later.
A recent lawsuit against Wendy’s shows how an injured customer may address that question. A Chicago woman alleges a meal delivered through DoorDash gave her a bacterial infection resulting in two hospitalizations and $93,578 in medical bills. Her complaint, which includes a strict product liability claim, alleges the food carried bacteria when it left the restaurant’s control. Although a third party completed the delivery, the lawsuit targets the restaurant chain. For agents, the case shows that handing orders to an app doesn’t remove a restaurant client from food-related claims.
Food claims follow the meal, but vehicle claims follow the driver; that difference determines which policy responds. General liability policies typically exclude injuries arising from vehicle use, a gap that also appears when bar staff use their own cars for business errands. Because of the exclusion, a crash during a delivery won’t fall under the restaurant’s general liability coverage. The claim moves to auto coverage instead, and the applicable auto coverage depends on who drives and who owns the vehicle.
When employees deliver in vehicles owned by the restaurant, the restaurant likely needs commercial auto insurance for those vehicles. Without it, a delivery crash leaves the business with no policy to respond to the injured party.
The line cook’s car creates a different chain of events. His personal auto policy may cover some business use, but insurers may charge more for that use, decline coverage, or cancel it. If his policy doesn’t respond, or if a serious accident exceeds his limits, the injured party may pursue the restaurant for the remaining damages. Non-owned auto liability protects the business in that situation. The coverage applies in excess of the employee’s personal auto limits, so it picks up where his policy stops.
Independent drivers on a delivery platform shift the question again. They don’t work for the restaurant, and the restaurant doesn’t own their vehicles. Instead, the restaurant’s agreement with the platform may include insurance and indemnification terms. Indemnification terms can shift the cost of certain claims from one party to the other, whether the claim involves a crash or a mishandled order. Platform agreements differ, so agents should read the client’s agreement before assuming the platform absorbs delivery claims.
Each delivery arrangement corresponds to a different level of coverage, so the review starts with how the client operates. Before deciding whether a client’s bar and restaurant insurance fits its delivery operation, agents can confirm the following:
Delivery adds two exposures to a restaurant account: a food exposure that stays with the restaurant and a vehicle exposure that depends on who drives. For the bar and grill, the line cook’s run and the app order call for separate coverage reviews. A gap in either one can leave the client paying a claim out of pocket. Contact RMS Hospitality Group to review whether a client’s bar and restaurant insurance program reflects how the client gets food to customers.
At RMS Hospitality Group, our expertly crafted policies are written specifically for the hospitality industry. We offer custom-tailored solutions to meet any venue’s specific needs. For more information, contact our knowledgeable experts today at (888) 359-8390.
