Katie Hopkins
- Thread starter Buckaroo
- Start date
ginger_syn
Her Insanity laughs under pressure...👾
This makes no sense at all did you forget a smilie
You're the only one who seems to think this.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I doubt it. It's possible that there are exclusions that would negate her making a claim. You haven't posted anything that supports that yet though. Neither has 8den. You're just agreeing with each other.
:shrug:
I posted the exclusions. They're self-evident. If you want to argue that black is white then knock yourself out. I don't need you to agree with me on it.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
They are. But they don't say what you think they do. On the contrary, they refute your position.
If only one of us was used to dealing with insurance contracts and had been in countless insurance litigations.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Ah, the appeal to authority. Wondered when that was coming!
Clearly your experience is in another area of insurance because you've made a very obvious mistake here but are refusing to back down. Why you insist on clinging to it, I don't know. It doesn't change much.
Athos
Well-Known Member
They really don't. You're taking bollocks.
Oh come on, it was funny.
Yes, it's a mystery why one clings on to self-evident truths.
Look, exclusion c is:
You have already acknowledged that the judge himself identified the "social anthrax" tweet as being an aggravating factor. You yourself posted the judge's comments:
So Hopkins presented material that to the knowledge of the Insured is likely to result in a claim for Libel or Slander.
Bear in mind that the interpretation of these clauses is based on the spirit of the clause -- the intent of the contract -- not the absolute letter. To equivocate about whether the "social anthrax" tweet was itself libel is to misunderstand the nature of these cases. It clearly made a claim for libel more likely, hence it would void the policy.
That's without even considering the other exclusions.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Ahhh, there you are. Wondered when you'd turn up, dickhead!And my interpretation of the exclusions fits the "reasonable man" understanding too. Nobody would reasonably expect that a libel policy allows you to say what you want, when you want and follow it up however you want, safe in the knowledge that you are covered by an insurer. A reasonable person would expect that they have some kind of duty to reasonably avoid bringing a libel case against themselves. That is the spirit of the exclusions.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Great comeback.
Unfortunately, this is another example of you pontificating on a subject where you know far less than you think, and far less than the person with whom you're disagreeing.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
use a cumberland curled one to cover your shame
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
That's not at issue though. It's highly unlikely that she thought "I'm going to libel you because I have insurance (if indeed she had)"
At the time she (Hopkins) could reasonably have thought that she hadn't libelled Munroe because, a) she had the wrong person, and b) she removed the tweet when she realised that she had the wrong person. The aggravating tweet, Hopkins would just say (at the time) was her being rude to someone she had de facto admitted she was wrong about by removing the tweet, and that was argued during the trial.
You're viewing this with hindsight knowing that she lost the case.
Last edited:
... and the fact that she argued this and lost is exactly why an insurer would have been falling over themselves to avoid risking such loss by reaching for the £5k offer.
You can argue that the £5k offer was "just a tweet", but there is no evidence whatsoever that Hopkins ever went back to try to make good on it.
But either way, the insurer does get to avoid the claim in hindsight. They would avoid it by citing the judge's decision that she aggravated the situation rather than attempting to mitigate it.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
if the tweet itself is taken seriously enough to be actionable surely the offer from monroe of a 5k apology is of equal weight? You can't say 'its just twitter' when the case surrounds shit said on 'just twitter'
ffsear
Well-Known Member
The requested was to pay £5k to charity was it not? That would be an admission of liability, and then she would have left herself wide open to a liable claim. That is not mitigation in the eyes of an insurance company.
I've never dealt with this kind of matter, but i do deal with professional indemnity and E&O for architects, engineers, banks and Accountants. The first step in mitigation is always contacting your insurance company first and let them or their lawyers draft a response to the claimant.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Unless on the advice of lawyers they felt that they could avoid paying even the £5k by successfully defending the action.
I'm not arguing that, but we do know that the 5k offer was withdrawn by Munroe, via solicitors, in August. The court proceedings weren't issued until December.
Last edited:
ffsear
Well-Known Member
Athos
Well-Known Member
If she had insurance and didn't contactthem at the very earliest opportunity, that'd likely amount to them being able to avoid the claim. And, if she had notified them, it's highly unlikley tht the insurer would have chosen to fight this rather than settle for £5K.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
It's practically impossible to get ATE insurance as the defendant in a defamation suit.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Now you're just making stuff up. Kabbes posted a list of exclusions to a defamation policy, none of which would seem to prevent a claim being made in this case. You need to evidence your case with some exclusions that would, not just keep banging on about stuff that you firmly think is true.
Show me: a) what was her "duty of care"? b) how she failed in it, c) that it would preclude her claiming costs on a defamation insurance policy (if she had it) ...
With links and stuff, rather than just thumping the table.
Sorry, I explained what a what a "duty of care" is using an analogy in a previous post.
Yes of course "duty of care" is legally defined.
Duty of care - Wikipedia
IF Hopkins had insurance covering libel, she would have (or should have) understood, that entering into her agreement with the insurance company that required her to adhere to a "duty of care". Much in the way the vast majority of insurance policies will be void if you drive drunk, because by driving drunk you've breached the "duty of care" you agreed to with the insurance policy. Someone with libel insurance must adhere to a duty of care in what they publish or say, or they will find the insurance invalid.
Is that clear? Or shall I dumb it down a bit more?
D'oh.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
QFT.
