Melbourne nightclub runs without public liability cover as premiums surge and insurers retreat
A venue built by a community, facing an insurance cliff
On Hopkins Street in Footscray, above a Vietnamese supermarket, a small nightclub has spent years building a reputation as a welcoming and safe place for staff and patrons. Since opening in 2018, Pride of our Footscray has hosted a busy calendar of events—poetry, bands, queer film nights, art classes, speed dating, comedy and trivia—and is particularly known for its drag performances.
Owner Mat O’Keefe describes the venue as a broad mix of people and a deliberate attempt to create an inclusive space. The business structure reflects that community ethos: O’Keefe owns a 50 per cent share, while 199 other people hold smaller stakes. He has likened it to a cooperative, built through the contributions of around 200 people.
Yet despite its strong local following and its role in Melbourne’s inner west nightlife, the club has spent the past two years operating without public liability insurance. That decision was not taken lightly. It followed four years of steep premium increases and, ultimately, a market search in which most insurers declined to offer cover at any price.
Why public liability insurance matters for venues
Public liability insurance is widely viewed as a crucial safety net for businesses that host members of the public. For a nightclub, the risk profile can be complex: crowd movement, late trading hours, alcohol service, and the potential for slips, trips or other injuries can all increase exposure.
The stakes are high. Without insurance, a single compensation claim arising from a patron injury could be financially devastating, potentially pushing a business into bankruptcy. That risk is what makes Pride of our Footscray’s situation so fraught: the venue continues to trade, but without the protection that many businesses consider essential.
From $1,000 to six figures: a timeline of rising premiums
The club’s insurance costs were once manageable. In its first few years, Pride of our Footscray’s public liability premium was $1,000 a year. The costs began to rise as the business developed and as its operating conditions changed.
Early years: The premium was $1,000 annually.
2020: After the venue’s liquor licence was extended to 3am, the premium increased to $6,270.
2022: The premium rose sharply to $43,010. O’Keefe paid the increase, describing it as huge.
2024: When the broker returned to the market for a new policy, 18 out of 19 insurers declined to offer cover at any price. One insurer offered a premium of $142,890.
O’Keefe said the $142,890 quote would have translated into a total cost of $157,179 once the expense of borrowing to pay it was included. In his view, accepting that offer would have ended the business.
Unable to secure affordable cover—and facing a market where most insurers would not quote at all—the venue stopped paying for public liability insurance. Two years later, the club is still trading, but the absence of cover continues to hang over staff and management.
Operating uninsured: “extremely stressful” and constant vigilance
O’Keefe has described the uninsured period as “extremely stressful”. Venue manager Monique Anderson said the possibility of an incident and a claim keeps everyone on “tenterhooks”, even though the venue has never had a claim against it.
That stress has translated into heightened attention to risk management on the floor. The venue employs three security guards and staff are careful to mop up spills quickly—practical steps aimed at preventing slips and other mishaps that could lead to injury.
The day-to-day reality is a balancing act: continuing to provide a lively venue for patrons while knowing that a single incident could have outsized consequences. For staff, it means operating with an additional layer of pressure that is difficult to switch off.
Building insurance pressures add another layer
Public liability is not the only insurance challenge the venue has faced. In 2023, the landlord’s insurer, WFI Insurance, refused to renew the building’s insurance policy because a nightclub operated in the premises.
In a statement, a spokesperson said the insurer does not cover buildings in which nightclubs operate due to heightened risk exposures, including fire and electrical hazards, and the potential for crowd density to impede fire response.
The landlord ultimately found a new building insurer, but Pride of our Footscray pays the lion’s share of that cost. The episode illustrates how insurance pressures can cascade: even when a venue is focused on its own operating cover, decisions by building insurers can affect whether a premises can remain viable.
At one point, an insurer told the venue it would only renew building insurance if the nightclub shut at midnight and patrons remained seated—conditions that would fundamentally change the nature of a nightclub and its business model.
A broader pattern across live music and nightlife
Pride of our Footscray’s experience has unfolded alongside widely discussed insurance hikes affecting other similar-sized venues in Melbourne, including Cherry Bar in the CBD and Fitzroy venues Yah Yah’s and The Old Bar. The issue has become a major concern for live music and entertainment businesses that rely on late-night trade and high patron turnover.
For these venues, insurance is not simply a line item. It can determine whether a business can operate at all, especially when insurers either price the risk at levels that are unaffordable or decide to exit the market entirely.
What the Insurance Council says is driving premium increases
The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has pointed to rising claims costs and higher legal fees as key drivers increasing premiums for venues. According to the ICA, rising costs are hitting hardest in higher-risk industries such as live music venues, festival operators, caravan parks and amusement venues.
The ICA has also said outdated laws are putting cover further out of reach for these industries. While the debate over legal settings can be technical, the practical outcome for many venue operators is easier to describe: premiums rise, fewer insurers are willing to quote, and businesses must decide whether they can continue to operate under those conditions.
A federal inquiry puts small business insurance under scrutiny
The federal government has been running hearings for an inquiry into small business insurance, taking submissions from insurers, businesses and other stakeholders. Pride of our Footscray detailed its own insurance experience to the inquiry and called for a government insurance scheme.
The inquiry has become a focal point for venue operators and industry groups seeking changes that could improve affordability and availability. For businesses like Pride of our Footscray, the core issue is not theoretical: it is whether an essential form of cover can be purchased at a price that makes continued operation possible.
Industry view: COVID-era claims and a shrinking premium pool
The Australian Live Music Business Council has argued that a small number of large claims during the COVID years wiped out the premium pool in the entertainment industry and removed profitability for underwriters. Board member Andrew Bassingthwaighte said that, as a result, the industry has effectively concluded it is too risky and has chosen to leave the market.
This helps explain why Pride of our Footscray’s broker could approach 19 insurers and receive refusals from 18 of them. In that environment, the problem is not only price; it is availability. Even a venue willing to pay more may find there are few, if any, insurers prepared to write the risk.
Calls to tighten compensation claim rules and improve risk presentation
The Australian Live Music Business Council has also told the federal inquiry it wants rules for compensation claims strengthened. Among the changes it argues for is a requirement that patrons notify a venue if they are injured straight after it happens.
In parallel, the council has co-created an app designed to help venues detail safety measures and present themselves in the best way to insurers. The FM Track app is intended to help venue managers mitigate injury risk—an attempt to translate day-to-day safety practices into documentation that may support an insurance application.
For venues, this reflects a growing reality: demonstrating risk controls is becoming as important as having them. Detailed records of safety procedures, incident responses and venue management practices can form part of how a business is assessed, particularly when insurers are cautious or selective.
A new broker model enters the picture
Entertainment venues generally apply for insurance through a broker, and Pride of our Footscray has followed that path. After the 2024 market approach that produced almost universal refusals, O’Keefe was recently invited by a company he had not heard of—Luma Insurance Brokers—to submit an application.
Luma launched in 2025 and has 120 clients, about half of which are music venues. The company said it had not yet provided a quote to Pride of our Footscray but expected to source one for less than $50,000.
Luma broker David Grainger said most brokers typically build a 10 to 30 per cent commission into insurance premiums, whereas his company charges a fixed hourly rate. He argued that the person tasked with finding the best insurance for music venues and clubs can be financially incentivised to keep premiums as high as possible when commissions are percentage-based.
O’Keefe, however, recalled the cost breakdown in the $142,890 quote from his broker in 2024 and said the commission was fair at about 10 per cent. The contrasting perspectives highlight an area of debate within the insurance ecosystem: how broker remuneration structures interact with already high premiums, and whether alternative fee models can deliver better outcomes for small businesses.
The human impact: performers, staff and patrons
Beyond spreadsheets and policy terms, the venue’s insurance struggle has personal consequences for the people who rely on it. HollyPop, a full-time drag queen, has worked at Pride of our Footscray for four years and said the venue has provided stages and audiences she previously would not have been able to reach. For her, the venue is both a workplace and a creative outlet.
“Without places like this I lose my income, I lose my spaces to perform,” she said, underscoring how venue viability affects artists and performers as well as owners.
Regular patrons also describe the club as important to the area. Venue regular Marzy Malyss called it an institution and said it is “one of the only gay venues in the western suburbs” and “very important for the queer community”.
O’Keefe has said he has heard anecdotally that the venue has provided the first night out for trans people—people who come because they have heard it is friendly. Anderson added that if the venue closed, some patrons might not simply move on to another venue; they might not go anywhere else and may not feel comfortable frequenting public spaces.
In this sense, the insurance problem is not only a business challenge. It also raises questions about what happens to community spaces when the cost of operating safely—through insurance and compliance—rises faster than the revenue a small venue can realistically generate.
What the Pride of our Footscray case shows
Pride of our Footscray’s experience brings several realities into sharp focus:
Premium volatility can be rapid and severe, shifting from thousands to tens of thousands, and in one quote into six figures.
Availability matters as much as price; the venue’s broker approached 19 insurers and only one offered terms.
Insurance issues can extend beyond public liability into building insurance, affecting landlords and tenants alike.
Operating uninsured changes workplace conditions, increasing stress and pushing staff into constant risk vigilance.
Community and cultural impacts are intertwined with financial viability, particularly for venues serving specific communities and artists.
For now, Pride of our Footscray continues to trade with a capacity of 200 patrons, supported by a loyal base drawn from across Melbourne and beyond. But its story sits within a larger national discussion—now before a federal inquiry—about how small businesses in higher-risk categories can access essential insurance cover, and what policy or market changes might be needed to keep those businesses operating.