Augmented indemnification for the un-insured
Insured or not, freelance reporters should never agree to an arrangement in which the outlet offers no protection in the case of a lawsuit—or worse, asks the freelancer to protect the outlet. Both happen. Both pose devastating financial threat.
The alternative to both—and the long-term solution for freelance investigative reporting—is an industry standard by which publishers and broadcasters indemnify the freelance reporters, ideally augmented by a bonus clause in the freelancer contract saying they'll do so explicitly via their media insurance:
“the Contractor/Reporter will be insured under the Outlet’s insurance policy, for which the Outlet would take any steps necessary.”
The extra language would help the outlet prevent its insurance carrier from demanding that the freelancer co-pay for the defense.
But in any case, indemnification by the outlet is crucial. That’s true whether nor not a freelancer can afford an individual policy—certainly many cannot.
As it turns out in practice, an outlet’s insurance carrier would typically not insist that an uninsured freelancer contribute to any claim defense (unless perhaps it finds out that the uninsured freelancer is wealthy)—and instead would simply pick up the entire cost.
The carrier’s decision to do so would not resolve itself until the claim is made. Legally, it could still ask the freelancer for money in the end, although the chances are very low that it would.
Still, augmented indemnification lowers the risk further, because it helps the outlet keep its insurance carrier from collecting anything from the freelancer. But again, that’s a bonus. The key is to secure indemnification.