Dick, This is important and insightful. Let me comment, from a career in libel insurance, on your points.
1. The retention: you are right that a lower SIR is better for the insured. However, that may not be available in the marketplace. Especially with high-risk publishers (think investigative), underwriters often insist on a high SIR to cushion the insurer from the cost of the claim. Small , high-risk publishers can't afford the high SIR, thus they become uninsurable. The problem of the unavailablity of insurance (for many different reasons around the world) is being addressed in a new project am I proudly involved with. www.reporters-shield.org Reporters Shield is a global not-for-profit membership association offering a legal defense fund for libel claims. This benefit can fund a member's high SIR, thus making insurance available to these higher risk publishers.
2. Selection of counsel: This can be a fraught process and controlling the cost of defense will always be an issue. Nonetheless, I agree that, from the publishers's point of view, the more control the publisher has, the better.
3.Settlements: I'm not aware that any of the usual libel insurance policies give the insurer control of settlements. I hope that hasn't changed.
I was nodding my head as I read. And Chad, I appreciate your thoughts (as always). I can add that I have a client in a libel suit that has been ongoing for some time. I am sorry her broker told her that her GL policy had publication coverage -- of course, it didn't. I am sure that this client is not alone in this situation. (Detailed omitted to protect my license.)
But, the explosion from plaintiff's attorney when he learned there was no deep pocket was really entertaining.....
Thanks, Dick. I was recently in a room with many independently-owned local news publishers, and it was striking that most did not have libel insurance. The Newspaper and Broadcast Media Jobs Program tax credit that we recently passed in New York State requires an eligible newspaper to have libel insurance. I have seen many publishers seek out a libel policy for the first time because of this new tax credit.
Helpful advice as always, Dick. One other issue, at least based on my experience, is that media liability insurance is a very specialized area of insurance. There are a handful of brokers that understand the business and it's invaluable to work with the right people to get the initial coverage.
This is great. I worked for a large newspaper represented by one of the country's preeminent First Amendment law firms, Baker & Hostetler, and I had no idea about some of this, particularly that an insurer can choose to settle your case. That's nuts for the reasons you note.
You don't seem to be aware of IRE's "FIRE" project, and also not aware that newsrooms are throwing reporters under the bus, because bean-counting lawyers instead of true newsroom lawyers are playing CYA to keep hedge fund bosses with no interest in public service journalism happy.
Dick, This is important and insightful. Let me comment, from a career in libel insurance, on your points.
1. The retention: you are right that a lower SIR is better for the insured. However, that may not be available in the marketplace. Especially with high-risk publishers (think investigative), underwriters often insist on a high SIR to cushion the insurer from the cost of the claim. Small , high-risk publishers can't afford the high SIR, thus they become uninsurable. The problem of the unavailablity of insurance (for many different reasons around the world) is being addressed in a new project am I proudly involved with. www.reporters-shield.org Reporters Shield is a global not-for-profit membership association offering a legal defense fund for libel claims. This benefit can fund a member's high SIR, thus making insurance available to these higher risk publishers.
2. Selection of counsel: This can be a fraught process and controlling the cost of defense will always be an issue. Nonetheless, I agree that, from the publishers's point of view, the more control the publisher has, the better.
3.Settlements: I'm not aware that any of the usual libel insurance policies give the insurer control of settlements. I hope that hasn't changed.
Chad Milton
Media Risk Consultants LLC
I was nodding my head as I read. And Chad, I appreciate your thoughts (as always). I can add that I have a client in a libel suit that has been ongoing for some time. I am sorry her broker told her that her GL policy had publication coverage -- of course, it didn't. I am sure that this client is not alone in this situation. (Detailed omitted to protect my license.)
But, the explosion from plaintiff's attorney when he learned there was no deep pocket was really entertaining.....
Thanks, Dick. I was recently in a room with many independently-owned local news publishers, and it was striking that most did not have libel insurance. The Newspaper and Broadcast Media Jobs Program tax credit that we recently passed in New York State requires an eligible newspaper to have libel insurance. I have seen many publishers seek out a libel policy for the first time because of this new tax credit.
Helpful advice as always, Dick. One other issue, at least based on my experience, is that media liability insurance is a very specialized area of insurance. There are a handful of brokers that understand the business and it's invaluable to work with the right people to get the initial coverage.
For a new news start up like myself, this was an educational read. Thank you!
This is great. I worked for a large newspaper represented by one of the country's preeminent First Amendment law firms, Baker & Hostetler, and I had no idea about some of this, particularly that an insurer can choose to settle your case. That's nuts for the reasons you note.
A really interesting read Dick, especially in my new role as Executive Director of Reporters Shield, I'll be hosting an online briefing about Reporters Shield on Wednesday 18th December, registrations here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/reporters-shield-information-session-tickets-1091192459019?aff=ebdsoporgprofile
You don't seem to be aware of IRE's "FIRE" project, and also not aware that newsrooms are throwing reporters under the bus, because bean-counting lawyers instead of true newsroom lawyers are playing CYA to keep hedge fund bosses with no interest in public service journalism happy.
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2015/indemnity-clauses-leave-freelancers-open-to-lawsuits/ and
https://www.firenewsroom.org/legal-consultancy
Try to keep up, huh?
Fascinating -- the insurer can settle?!