Operating multiple fitness locations introduces a different level of complexity. While each site may appear similar on the surface, insurers do not automatically treat multi-location businesses as simple replicas of a single facility. Risk is assessed across structure, consistency, control, and aggregation not just square footage and equipment lists. Many multi-location fitness operators encounter insurance issues because they assume coverage scales automatically as the business grows. In reality, some aspects of insurance change significantly with expansion, while others remain fundamentally the same.

This article explains what changes and what does not when insuring multi-location fitness operations.

What Stays the Same: Core Risk Categories

At a foundational level, the core risk categories remain consistent

across all fitness locations.

These include:

• Public and third-party liability
• Instruction and supervision exposure
• Equipment-related injury risk
• Participant behaviour variability
• Incident reporting obligations
• Whether a business operates one site or ten, insurers still assess duty of care, reasonable supervision, and risk controls at each location.
• The principles do not change the scale does.

What Changes: Aggregated Risk Exposure

The most significant difference for multi-location operators is aggregated exposure.

Insurers assess:

Total number of participants across all sites

• Combined injury frequency potential
• Multiple incidents within a single policy period
• Cumulative legal defence costs
• A claim at one location affects the entire policy. Defence costs and settlements are typically drawn from shared limits, unless the policy is structured otherwise.
• Policy Structure and Location Scheduling
• Multi-location policies require clear and accurate scheduling of each site.

Insurers expect:

• Each location to be declared
• Correct addresses and site descriptions
• Consistency in activities offered
• Disclosure of location-specific risks
• Adding locations without updating the policy is one of the most common and costly errors made by expanding fitness operators.
• Consistency of Operations Matters More Than Size
• Insurers focus heavily on operational consistency across locations.

They assess whether:

• Procedures are standardised
• Member inductions are uniform
• Training and supervision standards match
• Incident reporting follows the same process
• Risk management systems are centrally controlled
• Inconsistent operations across sites raise insurer concern even if each individual site appears low risk.
• Staffing and Contractor Models Across Sites
• Multi-location fitness businesses often use mixed staffing models.

Insurance considerations include:

• Whether instructors move between sites
• Consistency in contractor engagement
• Supervision standards at each location
• Responsibility for training and compliance
• Insurers expect clarity around who controls staff, how accountability is managed, and whether supervision standards are consistent across the network.
• Equipment and Layout Variations
• Even small variations between locations can affect insurance response.

Insurers assess:

• Differences in equipment types
• Layout constraints unique to each site
• Youth or specialty programs at selected locations
• Differences in unsupervised access or hours
• Assuming “near identical” locations are interchangeable can create coverage gaps when one site introduces higher-risk elements.
• Incident Trends Across the Network
• Insurers evaluate patterns, not just individual incidents.

They review:

• Frequency of incidents by location
• Repeated injury types
• Claims history trends
• Effectiveness of corrective actions
• A poorly managed site can influence the insurability of the entire operation.
• What Does Not Change: Disclosure Obligations
• Disclosure expectations do not relax as businesses scale.

Multi-location operators must still disclose:

• New services or training formats
• Changes in supervision models
• Equipment upgrades
• Contractor use
• Youth or specialised programs
• The difference with scale is volume, not obligation.
• Limits and Structure Become More Important
• Policy limits that were suitable for a single location may be inadequate for a network.

Insurers assess:

• Aggregate limits across all locations
• Defence cost erosion
• Claim clustering risk
• Business continuity exposure
• Multi-location fitness operators often require more deliberate limit structuring to avoid underinsurance.
• Governance and Oversight Expectations Increase
• As fitness businesses expand, insurers expect stronger governance.

This includes:

• Centralised policies and procedures
• Documented operational standards
• Regular audits and reviews
• Consistent enforcement
• Clear management accountability
• Informal oversight that works at one site rarely scales effectively.
• Why Multi-Location Fitness Insurance Fails

Insurance failures in multi-location operations usually stem from:

• Assuming scale equals duplication
• Delayed policy updates
• Inconsistent risk management
• Undisclosed site-specific changes
• Inadequate limits for aggregated exposure
• These issues often surface only after a significant claim occurs.

Closing Perspective

Multi-location fitness operations do not face different types of risk — they face more interconnected risk.

Insurance must reflect how sites interact, how exposure accumulates, and how governance is maintained across the network. When insurance structure and operations align, multi-location cover becomes a stabilising asset rather than a vulnerability.