The bbc, again.

[HKOwen]

I would agree that would be the case for most sectors, but the BBC will have an extension of PI which should cover them for media liability.

If Trump can prove malice then it wouldn't pay out, however if he is unsuccessful then it should cover it. The question is whether the level of cover is sufficient to cover it all... and to Badger's point would a judge rightfully punish the BBC and say their fees aren't included if they are successful in defending themselves.

It's a long since I became " failed completely in insurance " so I double checked.

No, according to Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) standards and standard insurance principles, professional indemnity (PI) insurance does not cover deliberate acts. PI policies are designed exclusively to cover civil liability arising from unintentional professional negligence, errors, omissions, or breaches of duty. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Core Principles

• • Unintentional focus: Policies only respond to unexpected or accidental events and honest mistakes.
  • Public policy: Insuring deliberate wrongdoing or illegal acts is legally restricted because it would encourage harmful behavior. [1, 2]

Key Exclusions

• • Deliberate or reckless acts: Any damage or omission done on purpose or handled with reckless disregard.
  • Fraud and dishonesty: Intentional theft, deception, or fraudulent schemes.
  • Criminal conduct: Fines, penalties, or liabilities stemming from proven criminal acts.

 

[Badger11]

You argue but miss our common ground:

It was libel.

They apologized and heads rolled.

The matter has been issued in a court in an area where there was next to no audience.

But...

If the BBC were bang to rights they would have settled.

The defences are very strong.

And..

Trump either dismisses any report he doesn't like as "fake news", or he goes after them through the courts. Most settle not because they were wrong, but because of the inequality of arms and the eye watering cost of defending.

If that isn't an attack on democracy, I would like to know what is.

We are both speculating can we agree to pick this up again when there is more definitive information e.g. judge rules on something significant.

 

[silvertop]

We are both speculating can we agree to pick this up again when there is more definitive information e.g. judge rules on something significant.

Of course, but what do you think the parties to the action are doing?

The outcome of a claim is generally a disappointment to all sides. It is the speculation of what might happen that's the fun bit.