Disgrace Insurance for Those Embarrassing and Costly Moments
In the age of social media, word of bad behavior spreads instantaneously, often causing immediate damage to brands.
August 09, 2018 at 02:32 PM
4 minute read
Companies derive significant financial benefit from celebrity and influencer endorsements, spokespersons and brand ambassadors. This financial benefit continues to grow as technology, especially social media platforms, expands the scope and breadth of the targeted audience.
Yet, the same actors, politicians, reporters, athletes, models, Instagram influencers and business moguls that increase a company's brand awareness and value can commit acts that disgrace the very companies they represent. The disgraceful acts of a company's spokesperson can result in financial loss and brand reputation damage. As a result, companies should be aware of a line of insurance coverage designed specifically to protect against this unique risk—disgrace insurance.
Disgrace insurance protects against financial loss when a company spokesperson “disgraces” him or herself or is otherwise embroiled in a scandal. This type of coverage has recently increased in popularity because the use of celebrities and athletes in promotional or advertising campaigns is increasingly lucrative—along with high-profile indiscretions and disgrace. Companies are more concerned about this risk because in the age of social media word of bad behavior spreads instantaneously, often causing immediate damage to the brands they represent. Further, the type of companies looking for this coverage has diversified with the proliferation of social media exposure and the power of image and branding.
If a spokesperson disgraces him or herself, then the advertising campaign may have to be canceled or changed at a significant cost to the company. Disgrace insurance can mitigate this risk by covering the direct costs associated with replacing a disgraced spokesperson, reimbursing the money paid to secure the endorsement, the performer fee and the direct costs associated with transforming the marketing campaign due to the disgrace. Coverage for revenue lost because of the negative impact on brand recognition and overall reputation may also be available.
Disgrace policies can be stand-alone policies or part of a packaged policy that typically includes death, disgrace and disability coverage. The cost of insuring disgrace risk depends in large part on the reputation of the spokesperson. Insurers will charge a higher premium for individuals with a history of indiscretions and may require the spokesperson to sign warranties relating to his or her lifestyle, consumption of alcohol and drug use. Interestingly, a spokesperson with a squeaky-clean image may be harder to price than those with a checkered past because the risk is unknown. Generally, the premiums for a disgrace policy range from 0.5 to 1 percent of the designated payout but rates as high as 4.5 percent have been quoted for a particularly risky spokesperson.
Disgrace policies will often exclude actions that are arguably typical of certain individuals. For example, the standard Lloyd's wording excludes “any action of the insured person that is consistent with the known public persona or behavior of that person which gives rise the offense, insult and the like.”
Further, a sticking point with disgrace coverage may be what constitutes the “disgrace” itself. Disgrace is a subjective concept. A typical disgrace policy provides coverage in the event of “any criminal act or any offence against public taste or decency committed by the insured person, or any situation or occurrence directly involving the insured person which degrades or brings that person into disrepute or provokes insult or shock to the community and reflects unfavorably upon the insured campaign or the insured, their principal(s) or product(s).” Therefore, it often becomes a discussion between insured, insurer and possibly loss adjuster to determine if there was a “disgrace” for purposes of coverage. There is no case law on the interpretation of disgrace in disgrace policies.
Given the subjective aspect of an individual's “known public persona” and the meaning of “disgrace,” disgrace policies should be carefully tailored and discussed with the broker before purchase. And when pursuing coverage, remember that the basic tenets of insurance law demand that any ambiguities in the meaning of “disgrace” should be interpreted against the insurer and in favor of coverage.
With the recent highly publicized spokesperson disgraces and the distinct possibility of similar scandals in the future, now is the time for companies to examine their insurance policies and evaluate the need for disgrace coverage.
Mikaela Whitman, a partner at Pasich, represents insureds in all phases of insurance recovery. She is an editor and co-author of the New Appleman Sports and Entertainment Insurance Law and Practice Guide.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Template' for Religious Accommodation: Attorney Gives Insight to $12M Win Over Employer's COVID-19 Vaccination Policies
Georgia RICO Case Against Trump Likely to Avoid Trial Amid Election Win, Nationally-Known Law Professor Says
'Nothing Is Good for the Consumer Right Now': Experts Weigh Benefits, Drawbacks of Updated Real Estate Commission Policies
Evaluating the Biden Administration's Business and Human Rights Agenda
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250