YouTuber, Coffeezilla: "My insurance broker scammed me for $1,000,000"

[Elliot Becker]

Coffeezilla is a YouTuber that has dubbed himself the "internet detective", uncovering big scams, often driven by other influencers.

The one thing that Coffeezilla didn't investigate well, was his insurance policy. When coffeezilla was sued by Logan Paul for defamation, he turned to his E&O insurance policy to protect him.

To the internet detectives surprise, his policy contained a defamation exclusion.

Coffeezilla and reddit were quick to throw the insurance producer under the bus for not disclosing his policy didn't cover the one thing he said he purchased it for. In Coffeezillas own words, errors and omissions in media means defamation, so it should have easily been implied the types of claims he wanted to be covered by the policy he has "paid 10s of thousand of dollars for" over the past 5+ years.

What are your opinions?



Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/s/mxqsQGeQBr

 

[tikibarrister]

In Coffeezillas own words, errors and omissions in media means defamation

Only watched the first couple mins but what he actually says is:

The reason I got this, the reason most media companies get this, is defamation lawsuits.

I don't think he got it expecting that he could then defame anyone without fear of reprisal. Rather, he was sold a policy that would protect him if he was sued.

So either

• he didn't understand what he was buying
• the broker sold him the wrong thing
• the broker misled him (possibly didn't understand the products he was selling)
• or the carrier is disagreeing with what their obligations are

I don't even know if this type of coverage exists so I'll stop there.

 

[whatyouwantfinally]

I guess it depends on how the laws are written in which state, but defamation generally requires actual malice, which isn't what "errors and omissions" are.

 

[Elliot Becker]

Only watched the first couple mins but what he actually says is:

The reason I got this, the reason most media companies get this, is defamation lawsuits.

I don't think he got it expecting that he could then defame anyone without fear of reprisal. Rather, he was sold a policy that would protect him if he was sued.

So either

• he didn't understand what he was buying
• the broker sold him the wrong thing
• the broker misled him (possibly didn't understand the products he was selling)
• or the carrier is disagreeing with what their obligations are

I don't even know if this type of coverage exists so I'll stop there.

Here's the quote I was referring to: "I'm
00:02:00.479 thinking what do you call errors and omissions in media you call it defamation. I mean if CNN goes on and they make an error about some random person that person's not going to sue them for the error they're going to sue them for defamation. Um so I was confus I was like wildly confused I go to my policy I'm like shocked to find yeah okay sure enough yep you guys are excluded from defamation and I'm like how did this happen?"

 

[whatyouwantfinally]

Here's the quote I was referring to: "I'm
00:02:00.479 thinking what do you call errors and omissions in media you call it defamation. I mean if CNN goes on and they make an error about some random person that person's not going to sue them for the error they're going to sue them for defamation. Um so I was confus I was like wildly confused I go to my policy I'm like shocked to find yeah okay sure enough yep you guys are excluded from defamation and I'm like how did this happen?"

I really like the guy and think he's far better than most at what he does, but he's flat out wrong here.

For a public figure/celebrity to sue/win, they have to prove something was falsely said on purpose; as in not an error. For anyone else, they at least have to prove negligence (should have known it was false).

Given his work, he really should've known this.

 

[scagnt83]

Defamation is a crime, and it is defined as an intentional act. Normal E&O does not cover intentional illegal acts. Errors and Omissions are accidental, not intentional.

 

[walthamny]

Is there any insurance for Defamation to begin with?

 

[scagnt83]

Is there any insurance for Defamation to begin with?

Probably. You an get about anything covered if your willing to pay enough. How they would underwrite that, is beyond me though.

 

[LeeV]

I am in the Life and Health world, but even I know that he would have needed a specialized policy for defamation. Just another person not wanting to take responsibility.

 

[whatyouwantfinally]

I was a little embarrassed I didn't know more about what would/wouldn't be covered here so I dug a little.

Here's what I'd guess happened;

He purchased a CGL (general liability) policy for his business. He may have even asked, "Does this cover defamation?" and been told yes.

These policies will typically cover you for claims of defamation that stems from advertising your services, like saying stuff about competitors in commercials/promo materials.

The problem is his videos are his services and he said what he said (which is absolutely not defamation, to be clear. It's a malicious lawsuit) in a video, not a commercial. Therefore, his policy won't pay.

What he needed (and his agent absolutely should have told him about) is a media liability policy. These policies don't limit defamation claims to advertising. I wouldn't have known off the top of my head either, but I sure would've looked it up before giving someone (a mini celebrity, at that) an answer.