"Augmented" indemnification for the insured
Even if an outlet agrees to indemnify a freelancer from liability in the event of legal action arising from a story, there’s still another financial risk: The outlet’s insurance carrier can still require the freelancer to help pay for any defense.
- If the freelancer has insurance, the outlet’s carrier would almost certainly see it as a source of additional revenue if faced with a legal threat over the story.
- If asked to contribute by filing a claim, the freelancer may have to commit a prohibitively high deductible and higher premiums.
To be sure, the size of the claim would be much higher—maybe double, with a far steeper increase in premiums—if the outlet had not promised to indemnify the reporter outright. So indemnification is a must.
But being asked to contribute can still pose a significant cost. If an outlet were agreeable about limiting your exposure, it could also add something like the following provision to any indemnification section:
“the Contractor/Reporter will be insured under Outlet’s insurance policy, for which the Outlet would take any steps necessary.”
For an insured freelancer, such a stipulation would give the publisher or broadcaster far more leverage to approach its insurance company in case of legal action, saying, We promised this protection to the reporter, please back off, do not ask their insurer to contribute—we need to ask you to cover them completely.
Indemnified with this augmented protection, the insured freelancer could more likely avoid filing a claim in the face of a lawsuit, allowing her insurance to remain as back up only. That could relieve even more financial anxiety. It could channel even more energy into reporting the story for the public—confidently and thoroughly.