Katie Hopkins

[JimW]

ffsear, I take it back about you not knowing about insurance.

You are still wrong here though.

The standard exclusion in E&O goes along the lines of

• Malicious, dishonest, criminal or illegal acts, including intentional violation of any law, regulation, statute or ordinance

That's because it isn't intended to cover the moral hazard of you doing the fuck you want because you are covered.

Look at the exclusions in this example of a libel extension clause:

http://openspace.ace-ina.com/policy_wordings/Documentation/Policy Wordings/UK/03 Casualty/1 - Primary/PRIMARY LIABILITY CLAUSE BANK (CasPrim, medEQUIP, Offshore Liability policies)/LIBEL AND SLANDER EXTENSION - PL - L83 (to 30-04-09).pdf

Now look at exclusions b and e and tell me Hopkins would still be on coverage.

For that matter, look at conditions 1 and 3.

There is no way an insurer is paying for this.

Come on, that doesn't even mention dogs, or any other companion animal for that matter.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

I think it was a St Bernard, consenting Saint Bernard . Not that one.

St Bernard or Sir Bernard?

 

[Spymaster]

ffsear, I take it back about you not knowing about insurance.

You are still wrong here though.

The standard exclusion in E&O goes along the lines of

• Malicious, dishonest, criminal or illegal acts, including intentional violation of any law, regulation, statute or ordinance

That's because it isn't intended to cover the moral hazard of you doing the fuck you want because you are covered.

Look at the exclusions in this example of a libel extension clause:

http://openspace.ace-ina.com/policy_wordings/Documentation/Policy Wordings/UK/03 Casualty/1 - Primary/PRIMARY LIABILITY CLAUSE BANK (CasPrim, medEQUIP, Offshore Liability policies)/LIBEL AND SLANDER EXTENSION - PL - L83 (to 30-04-09).pdf

Now look at exclusions b and e and tell me Hopkins would still be on coverage.

For that matter, look at conditions 1 and 3.

There is no way an insurer is paying for this.

I'm not sure why everyone is so keen to insist that insurers won't be involved here.

Exclusions b), and e), wouldn't apply because neither were the case at the time the Tweet was made. Hopkins didn't know the statement was false because she thought she was responding to Laurie Penny. Similarly, she didn't bear Munroe any previous ill-will because she didn't know who she was ... she thought she was Laurie Penny.

Conditions 1), and 3), refer to legal advice that was sought.

Reading more about this this morning you can see how this has come about.

The first Tweet was posted at 7.20am on 18th May. This was the one mistakenly accusing Munroe of defacing war memorilas.

Munroe responded three times at 7.33am ('this is wrong'), 7.46am ('please retract or i'll sue'), and 8.14am. The 8.14am Tweet was the offer to settle for £5k to charity.

Hopkins deleted the Tweet at 9.47am, but instead of retracting or apologising she called Munroe "social anthrax"

Both lawyers thought they could win this. We know this because they were both acting on "no win no fee". What this rested on was whether or not "serious harm" had been caused to Munroe's reputation. Jonathon Price (for Hopkins) argued that the Tweet had been deleted quickly and was only visible for under 2 hours in the early morning. Also that Hopkins had issued a correction, albeit not until June 2nd after solicitors had got involved.

So it was "serious harm" that was pivotal and it was argued that this didn't occur. This wasn't quite the slam-dunk for Munroe as people seem to think. Price, along with others, genuinely thought he'd win, and this case has lowered the bar regarding what constitutes "serious harm" in libel cases.

Insurance may or may not come into play here but nothing posted so far precludes it.

 

[kabbes]

The reasons the exclusions come into play is because of Hopkin's immediate response, where she refuses to back down (thus knowingly propagating the error) and makes it clear that she DOES have personal spite against Munroe.

She did not act to mitigate her actions, which also places her in contravention of the conditions.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not sure why everyone is so keen to insist that insurers won't be involved here.

Exclusions b), and e), wouldn't apply because neither were the case at the time the Tweet was made. Hopkins didn't know the statement was false because she thought she was responding to Laurie Penny. Similarly, she didn't bear Munroe any previous ill-will because she didn't know who she was ... she thought she was Laurie Penny.

Conditions 1), and 3), refer to legal advice that was sought.

Reading more about this this morning you can see how this has come about.

The first Tweet was posted at 7.20am on 18th May. This was the one mistakenly accusing Munroe of defacing war memorilas.

Munroe responded three times at 7.33am ('this is wrong'), 7.46am ('please retract or i'll sue'), and 8.14am. The 8.14am Tweet was the offer to settle for £5k to charity.

Hopkins deleted the Tweet at 9.47am, but instead of retracting or apologising she called Munroe "social anthrax"

Both lawyers thought they could win this. We know this because they were both acting on "no win no fee". What this rested on was whether or not "serious harm" had been caused to Munroe's reputation. Jonathon Price (for Hopkins) argued that the Tweet had been deleted quickly and was only visible for under 2 hours in the early morning. Also that Hopkins had issued a correction, albeit not until June 2nd after solicitors had got involved.

So it was "serious harm" that was pivotal and it was argued that this didn't occur. This wasn't quite the slam-dunk for Munroe as people seem to think. Price, along with others, genuinely thought he'd win, and this case has lowered the bar regarding what constitutes "serious harm" in libel cases.

Insurance may or may not come into play here but nothing posted so far precludes it.

Not your most persuasive case, pa

 

[Spymaster]

The reasons the exclusions come into play is because of Hopkin's immediate response, where she refuses to back down (thus knowingly propagating the error) and makes it clear that she DOES have personal spite against Munroe.

She did not act to mitigate her actions, which also places her in contravention of the conditions.

Nothing in the terms you've posted says she has to back down. On the contrary, they switch the onus to her counsel:

3. Unless a Queen's Counsel or similar legal authority (to be mutually agreed upon by the Insured and the Company) shall advise that any proceedings could be contested with the probability of success the Insured shall in the event of a claim or occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Extension

i) tender such apologies and offer such amends as such Counsel or legal authority shall advise should properly be made in the circumstances

ii) agree to the withdrawal of the offending matter or the publication of any amendment or alteration necessary to secure withdrawal of the claim.

Given that her QC intended to argue "serious harm" it's quite possible that he'd have given such advice.

 

[Pickman's model]

Nothing in the terms you've posted says she has to back down. On the contrary, they switch the onus to her council:

Not her local authority but her lawyer - counsel.

 

[8den]

I'm not sure why everyone is so keen to insist that insurers won't be involved here.

Exclusions b), and e), wouldn't apply because neither were the case at the time the Tweet was made. Hopkins didn't know the statement was false because she thought she was responding to Laurie Penny. Similarly, she didn't bear Munroe any previous ill-will because she didn't know who she was ... she thought she was Laurie Penny.

Her legal team tried that defence, it's novel, in that it can only be described as ridiculous, "I thought the person I slandered and abused was someone else, because I'm incapable of basic fact checking"

Another tactic for her own defence team was to try and claim no right thinking person would take Hopkins seriously, and Hopkin's own barrister referred to her as "rentagob"

Hopkins deleted the Tweet at 9.47am, but instead of retracting or apologising she called Munroe "social anthrax"

Both lawyers thought they could win this. We know this because they were both acting on "no win no fee". What this rested on was whether or not "serious harm" had been caused to Munroe's reputation. Jonathon Price (for Hopkins) argued that the Tweet had been deleted quickly and was only visible for under 2 hours in the early morning. Also that Hopkins had issued a correction, albeit not until June 2nd after solicitors had got involved.

So it was "serious harm" that was pivotal and it was argued that this didn't occur. This wasn't quite the slam-dunk for Munroe as people seem to think. Price, along with others, genuinely thought he'd win, and this case has lowered the bar regarding what constitutes "serious harm" in libel cases.

Insurance may or may not come into play here but nothing posted so far precludes it.

It precludes that idea that you can purchase rental insurance that allows you to have free speech without consequences, and that Hopkins' insurance (if it existed) would cover her in this situation.

 

[Spymaster]

Not your most persuasive case, pa

You think, son?

Here's the judgement.

 

[Spymaster]

Not her local authority but her lawyer - counsel.

Good spot, son. Proud of ya.

Edited.

 

[kabbes]

Given that her QC intended to argue "serious harm" it's quite possible that he'd have given such advice.

That she should call the person she'd libelled "social anthrax", thus both multiplying the harm AND demonstrating personal spite against her?

If that's the QC's level of advice, it's no wonder she lost.

 

[ffsear]

Ksbbes, you've just pulled out a random exclusion and she's not covered. But that exclusion could be bolted onto any policy. We don't know to what type of policy it applies, but I very much doubt it attaches to a media liability policy.

Look and at this example




I could use this example say she is covered. But both are irrilevent as they are taken out of context.

E&O policies are Taylor made to suit the company or indavidual

 

[kabbes]

Ksbbes, you've just pulled out a random exclusion and she's not covered. But that exclusion could be bolted onto any policy. We don't know to what type of policy it applies, but I very much doubt it attaches to a media liability policy.

Look and at this example

View attachment 102208


I could use this example say she is covered. But both are irrilevent as they are taken out of context.

E&O policies are Taylor made to suit the company or indavidual

You've not listed the exclusions on that policy.

I do know exactly the kind of policy my extension applies to, though. It is a libel extension that is for application to any primary casualty cover in which libel coverage is deemed appropriate. The wording is standard because it's not 2005 any more and underwriters are not trusted to just come up with their own wording on the fly. The desire for contract certainty has led to wording for clauses drafted by lawyers in advance.

 

[8den]

That she should call the person she'd libelled "social anthrax", thus both multiplying the harm AND demonstrating personal spite against her?

If that's the QC's level of advice, it's no wonder she lost.

Also surely they can't have been her counsel when she rejected the 5k...

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

So it was "serious harm" that was pivotal and it was argued that this didn't occur. This wasn't quite the slam-dunk for Munroe as people seem to think. Price, along with others, genuinely thought he'd win, and this case has lowered the bar regarding what constitutes "serious harm" in libel cases.

Ehrm, no.

Jack Monroe wins Twitter libel case against Katie Hopkins

The judge, Mr Justice Warby, found that Hopkins’ tweets were defamatory and that there had been damage to Monroe’s reputation, “albeit not very serious or grave”.

Hence the relatively low award of £24k.

 

[Spymaster]

That she should call the person she'd libelled "social anthrax", thus both multiplying the harm AND demonstrating personal spite against her?

You're barking up the wrong tree. Personal ill-will indicates something that pre-existed. If you and I had a history of beef and I were to Tweet "Kabbes fucks dogs" that would be based on personal ill-will.

If that's the QC's level of advice, it's no wonder she lost.

Well again, he would have been advising her based on the defence that he intended to mount. In this case "serious harm" and at the time it was not an unreasonable one.

Have you read the judgement?

 

[Spymaster]

Also surely they can't have been her counsel when she rejected the 5k...

Lawyers hadn't been engaged at the point that offer was made. It was made on the morning or the tweets on Twitter.

 

[killer b]

I don't work in insurance, but I have dealt with a number of claims against the company I work for, and IME insurance companies are massively risk averse and will mostly settle early regardless of how valid the claim is, rather than go to court.

That Hopkins' lawyers thought she could win is pretty irrelevant here isn't it? If she had insurance, her insurers would have looked at the 5 grand offer on the table and said 'yep that's fine' and paid it. They simply wouldn't have been prepared to risk a court case which would likely have cost them more than that regardless who won.

 

[kabbes]

You're barking up the wrong tree. Personal ill-will indicates something that pre-existed. If you and I had a history of beef and I were to Tweet "Kabbes fucks dogs" that would be based on personal ill-will.

The fact that she called her "social anthrax" combined with the timing of it strongly indicates pre-existing ill-will. Certainly enough so that I would expect an insurer to avoid the claim. Something tells me she probably has some prior history of other insults too, just to add fuel to the fire.

 

[Spymaster]

Ehrm, no.

Jack Monroe wins Twitter libel case against Katie Hopkins



Hence the relatively low award of £24k.

Ehrm, that's exactly what I've been saying!

 

[kabbes]

I don't work in insurance, but I have dealt with a number of claims against the company I work for, and IME insurance companies are massively risk averse and will mostly settle early regardless of how valid the claim is, rather than go to court.

That Hopkins' lawyers thought she could win is pretty irrelevant here isn't it? If she had insurance, her insurers would have looked at the 5 grand offer on the table and said 'yep that's fine' and paid it. They simply wouldn't have been prepared to risk a court case which would likely have cost them more than that regardless who won.

This is precisely the point that I made right at the start of this whole insurance diversion. It's absolutely the case.

 

[8den]

Ehrm, no.

Jack Monroe wins Twitter libel case against Katie Hopkins



Hence the relatively low award of £24k.

Part of Hopkin's legal defence was that no right-thinking person would take what she says seriously and she was and I quote a "rentagob". When your own brief is using that line.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Ehrm, that's exactly what I've been saying!

Not it ain't; you've been saying that Monroe's team were after Hopkins due to the serious harm the tweets caused and that, " this case has lowered the bar regarding what constitutes "serious harm" in libel cases."

Which of course it doesn't as the judge quite rightly pointed out that the harm was not serious.

 

[Spymaster]

The fact that she called her "social anthrax" combined with the timing of it strongly indicates pre-existing ill-will. Certainly enough so that I would expect an insurer to avoid the claim. Something tells me she probably has some prior history of other insults too, just to add fuel to the fire.

You're right that the second Tweet aggravated the situation, and that was accepted by the judge:

It is said that Ms Hopkins acted maliciously in sending the Second Tweet, knowing it was untrue to suggest that Ms Monroe had vandalised or condoned the vandalisation of a war memorial. I do not know what Ms Hopkins’ actual state of mind was, as she has not given evidence, nor has she explained her position otherwise than through her lawyers. If she had done so, and persuasively rebutted what Ms Monroe says about these matters, I might have disregarded this part of the claimant’s evidence. But in the absence of any rebuttal I conclude that Ms Monroe’s response was and remains a reasonable one. I remain of the view I expressed in Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226 (QB) [22], that when malice is alleged in aggravation of damages, “… the issue is not the actual state of mind of the defendant. It is whether the claimants have suffered additional injury to feelings as a result of the defendant’s outward behaviour. If the defendant has behaved in a way which leads the claimants reasonably to believe he acted maliciously that is enough.”

But saying that it shows pre-existing ill-will is drawing a conclusion that's not supported.

This of course, all assumes that Hopkins was insured.

 

[kabbes]

Right, I'm not saying pre-existing ill-will was demonstrated in the libel trial. I'm saying that if Hopkins had libel coverage and tried to claim on it, one of the exclusions the insurers would be relying on in their own legal case (if it went that far) to avoid paying the claim would be that Hopkins had pre-existing ill-will against Munroe, and the "social anthrax" comment is one of the pieces in demonstrating that ill-will.

(But the aggravation of the initial offence is in itself enough to void the coverage in any case.)

 

[killer b]

This is precisely the point that I made right at the start of this whole insurance diversion. It's absolutely the case.

Oh, I know - it just looks like the diversion is now wrangling over things that are much further down the line than the point at which the insurers would have coughed up (if they existed at all).

 

[Spymaster]

Not it ain't; you've been saying that Monroe's team were after Hopkins due to the serious harm the tweets caused and that, " this case has lowered the bar regarding what constitutes "serious harm" in libel cases."

Which of course it doesn't as the judge quite rightly pointed out that the harm was not serious.

No. Again, read the judgement.

It's not about what Munroe's team were "after Hopkins for". It was that Hopkins defence were arguing that that "serious harm" had not been caused.

You're agreeing with me.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

No. Again, read the judgement.

It's not about what Munroe's team were "after Hopkins for". It was that Hopkins defence were arguing that that "serious harm" had not been caused.

You're agreeing with me.

What do you mean by this: this case has lowered the bar regarding what constitutes "serious harm" in libel cases.

 

[ffsear]

Also surely they can't have been her counsel when she rejected the 5k...

Well she rejected the 5k on Twitter. Which I don't think is classed an actual claim. It would be notice of a circumstance that could give rise to a claim. Do we actually know what the claimats lawyers actually asked for when the wrote to Hopkins lawyers? I'm guessing it would have been a lot more once the lawyers (the real winners here!) got involved.

 

[Spymaster]

That Hopkins' lawyers thought she could win is pretty irrelevant here isn't it? If she had insurance, her insurers would have looked at the 5 grand offer on the table and said 'yep that's fine' and paid it. They simply wouldn't have been prepared to risk a court case which would likely have cost them more than that regardless who won.

This is precisely the point that I made right at the start of this whole insurance diversion. It's absolutely the case.

This assumes that the £5k offer was still on the table by the time lawyers got involved. It was an off-the-cuff offer made by Monroe on the morning of the Tweet exchange, not a serious offer made through lawyers.

<edit: as ffsear says above>