Defamation liability risk has increased exponentially in this brave new world of social media.

Brian RosenbaumDirector of the Financial Services Group,(Legal Research and Practice)Aon Reed Stenhouse Inc.

Michael C. Smith Partner,Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Many of us have realized, with the blood drain-ing from our faces (notwithstanding a quick-ened heartbeat), that the ‘undo’ button does not work after the ‘send’ or ‘post’ button has been pressed. Many of us have written things and quickly sent them into cyberspace, only to spend a long time afterwards wishing we could take those things back because, on even a bit of reflection, the comments were inappropri-ate, harsh, etc. Anecdotally, it seems people gen-erally do not put as much consideration into what and how they write in email and social media tools as they do with conventional forms of communication. Perhaps this is due to the immediacy of the medium and the lack of in-herent opportunity for sober second thought prior to publication.

The use of social media is commonplace and growing. It is now interwoven with most online

applications. It is available on your phone in your pocket or purse when, say, you have had a few too many cocktails. You can hardly find a product online that does not have consumer reviews attached to it.

One consequence is a remarkable increase in the opportunity to defame others, and to do so instantaneously to the entire world, perma-nently. Defamation liability risk has increased exponentially in this brave new world. The magnitude and prevalence of that risk may not be fully appreciated by insurers and insureds alike because, we suspect, many cases consider-ing these issues are being settled before courts consider them and report their decisions. There is still a dearth of reported cases and guidance from the courts today. But only a few high-pro-file judgments, settlements or class actions are required to increase that consciousness. Victims

52 Canadian Underwriter August 2011

Our Insight. Your Advantage.Learn how the A.M. Best Company

can help inform your Canadian insurance market research.

Best’s Statement File – CanadaTake a closer look at the Canadian insurance market with financial data from filings made with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) by hundreds of property/casualty or life/health insurers. Access the latest financial data with A.M. Best’s online BestLink ® service.

Best’s Statement File – Canada includes:• Convenient and flexible data access via:

• BestLink, which provides financials, ratings, reports and more directly from your Web browser

• BestLink for Excel ®, which lets you quickly and easily download the latest financial data into Microsoft Excel

• CD-ROMs, for Windows-based software and local access

• Best’s Executive Summary Reports that highlight key performance areas

• PDFs of OSFI filings from the most recent data years• 25 years of historical Best’s Credit Ratings• BestWeek ® and Best’s Review ®

• And more

BestLink is a one-stop resource for online financial data and reports.

A.M. Best Company • Ambest Road • Oldwick, NJ 08858 • (908) 439-2200, ext. 5311 • www.ambest.com

For more information:Call Corporate Sales at (908) 439-2200, ext. 5311, e-mail sales@ambest.com or visit:P/C edition: www.ambest.com/sales/statementcanadapc • L/H edition: www.ambest.com/sales/statementcanadalhThe P/C and L/H editions are sold separately.

0411

5A

Ties that Bind, Tweets that Defame

54 Canadian Underwriter August 2011

in cyberspace. For example, are Internet service providers “publishers” and liable simply because defamatory comments pass over their servers for publication? What about a blog host? What about the employer from whose laptop and servers an employee sent a defamatory statement? What about someone who hyperlinks to or passes on the address to a defamatory Web site? (A decision

is currently pending from the Supreme Court of Canada on this point.) What about a travel review Web site that contains defamatory reviews?

Until we have more definitive an-swers to these questions, and as long as there remains an omnipresent desire to find “deep pockets” to pay for the court awards or the costs of the litigation, we will see victims including anyone who could potentially be a “publisher” as a defendant in their lawsuits. Employers will likely be implicated in lawsuits stemming from an employee’s defama-tory postings from work assets.

Damages for defamation are not subject to the “cap” on general dam-ages for pain and suffering (currently around $345,000). The damages are “at large.” Some awards have exceeded $1 million. The courts have recognized the reach and permanency of Internet defamation and have signaled that dam-age awards will be higher as a result.

With the risk outlined, let’s look

of online defamation will become aware of their rights, increasing claims volume. Businesses and individuals will start asking for protection, if they are not already. Brokers need to develop an understanding of the risk/coverage equation in this space if they do not al-ready have it. Opportunities likely exist for insurers to introduce new products offering appropriate coverage to the various classes of insureds they service — from the family with social media-crazed teenagers in the house to large multi-national corporations.

The RiskThe tort of defamation protects a per-son’s reputation from false statements. Libel (written words and broadcasts) and slander (spoken words) are sub-sets of defamation. A statement is de-famatory if it lowers the subject’s repu-tation. The relative ease with which at least prima facie liability for defamation can be established is not widely ap-preciated. The only thing the victim of defamation has to prove to establish li-ability is that the defendant published a statement — in the sense that a third party heard or read the statement — concerning the victim that, in its lit-eral meaning or by innuendo, had a tendency to lower the reputation of the victim. Then the onus shifts to the de-fendant to prove the elements of one of the defences to the tort [e.g. justifica-tion (truth), fair comment (opinion), qualified privilege or responsible communication on matters of public interest]. The defendant’s intention is largely irrelevant. Liability can be es-tablished even if the defendant did not intend to defame the victim. Liability is determined based on the words used and the fact of publication.

Any repetition of defamatory statements makes the person repeating them liable as a publisher just as if they had made the statements originally. This is where the law needs to catch up with the Internet Age and provide guidance as to whom is a “publisher”

briefly at the coverage provided by common types of liability policies and the coverage issues that may be raised.

homeowneR’s PolicyIf the communication is made in the social networker’s individual capacity, then his or her homeowner’s policy could provide some coverage for de-fense costs and judgments/settlements arising out of a defamation action. However, a number of provisions in the typical homeowner’s policy could preclude coverage.

In order for the personal liability coverage to trigger in a homeowner’s policy, a “bodily injury” must result from an “occurrence.” An occurrence is generally defined as an accident. Many U.S. and Canadian courts have determined the intentional posting of defamatory or offensive messages is not accidental in nature and therefore would not qualify as an occurrence. Recently, however, a number of courts have ruled the intentional posting of defamatory remarks can constitute an occurrence if the effects of such a post-ing were unintentional and accidental.

Assuming the occurrence require-ment is met, a bodily injury must still result from the defamatory statements. Certainly if a plaintiff alleges a physical injury, such as a heart attack, such an al-legation would constitute bodily injury under the policy definition. However, many courts have ruled that mental an-guish alone, the most common allega-tion in defamation actions, would not meet the bodily injury requirement.

Even if the occurrence and bodily injury requirements have been satisfied, a number of exclusions might preclude coverage. The expected or intended injury exclusion would eliminate coverage if the social networker’s defamatory posts could be considered as intentional or made with an expectation to injure someone. Further, the business exclusion would preclude coverage if the defamatory remarks resulted in bodily injury arising out

Guy Carpenter’s risk and capital management tools unite our deep understanding of risk with our industry-leading analytical capabilities. Our increasing range of proprietary platforms — which include MetaRisk®, i-aXs® and CasCatTM, the industry’s fi rst casualty catastrophe model — enable our brokers to deliver knowledge, so you can make better informed decisions that achieve desired results.

For superior analytics and advice, contact your Guy Carpenter broker or visit us at www.guycarp.com.

Guy Carpenter…your key to better decision making.

Perspective. Analytics. Understanding.

Unlock the Mysteries of Risk

56 Canadian Underwriter August 2011

coverage BCoverage B deals with personal and advertising injury. It is considerably broader than Coverage A, in that there is no bodily injury or occurrence requirement to trigger coverage. However, in order to access the policy, the personal injury must arise out of a specifically defined wrongful act that might include the posting of libelous statements or remarks violating another’s privacy.

Also, a number of specific exclusions can limit or eliminate recovery. If a statement is published with the knowledge that it is false, coverage may be precluded. In addition, defamation allegations are often coupled with invasion of privacy allegations. This can create coverage difficulties under Coverage B due to an exclusion for knowingly violating another’s rights. This provision would preclude coverage when the personal injury was

of or in connection with a business conducted from an insured location or engaged in by an insured, irrespective of the ownership of said business. Other fact-specific exclusions in the typical homeowner’s policy could also limit or preclude coverage.

It should be noted some insurers can provide defamation coverage that is not conditional upon establishing bodily injury.

commeRciAl GeneRAl liABiliTy PolicyA Commercial General Liability policy (CGL) is designed to pro-vide general liability coverage to business entities. It can potentially provide coverage for defense costs and settlements/judgments result-ing from an employee’s defamatory statements, but only if the remarks were made in the scope of employ-ment. Two standard coverages under a CGL policy come into play when considering defamation.

coverage ACoverage A deals with bodily injury and property damage. It is very simi-lar to the homeowner’s policy, so the above analysis is applicable in deter-mining coverage limitations. Bear in mind that many CGL policies contain a personal and advertising injury ex-clusion pertaining solely to Coverage A that forces any claims of bodily injury arising out of personal injury into Coverage B.

caused with the knowledge that the act would violate the rights of another and would inflict personal injury. Recovery could also be eliminated if the personal injury arises out of an electronic chatroom or bulletin board the insured hosts, owns or over which the insured exercises control.

mediA liABiliTy PolicyOther insurance policies might provide slivers of coverage for defamation in the social media arena. However, the most robust coverage available for this risk is contained in a media liability policy. This insurance is specifically designed to protect businesses and their employees against claims arising out of the communication of information and would include broad defamation coverage. Companies and their employees use social media for a whole host of purposes and not all media liability policies are created equal, so it is important to review the policy definitions, terms, conditions and exclusions with an insurance specialist in this area. Of particular importance is the definition of covered media. To a large degree, this will determine the breadth of coverage. However, since media liability insurance is specifically crafted to cover defamation, there are fewer obstacles to recovery than those in homeowner’s and CGL policies.

Stay tuned (or logged on). If, as we predict, defamation claims volume increases as social media users gain rights awareness, so to will come an increase in coverage demands and coverage issues.

Any repetition of defamatory statements makes the person repeating them liable as a publisher just as if they had made the statements originally.

This is where the law needs to catch up with the internet Age and provide guidance as to whom is a “publisher” in cyberspace.

A cGl policy can potentially provide coverage for defence costs/settlements from an employee’s defamatory statements, but only if the remarks were made in the scope of employment.

HYBRID AUCTION ADVANTAGE

BUYER ADVANTAGE EXPERIENCE ADVANTAGE

LOCATION ADVANTAGE

ADVANTAGE

www.impactauto.ca© 2011 Impact Auto Auctions Ltd. All rights reserved.

PROVIDING THE

IN SALVAGE MANAGEMENT

Serge Babineau – Director of National Accounts sbabineau@impactauto.ca • 905.896.9727

Impact Auto Auctions provides the clear advantage of LiveBlock™ hybrid auction technology and thousands of Canadian and international buyers to maximize exposure and competition for your vehicles. With 13 locations across Canada, and over 25 years of experience serving the Canadian P&C industry, Impact employees have the expertise to effectively manage your salvage assets and maximize returns.

Contact us to learn more about the Impact Advantage!

102325iaa IMPACT Comprehensive Ad_FINALCONCEPT_3May11.indd 1 5/4/11 3:13 PM