Thursday, December 05, 2013

Alms For The Poor-Mouths

In the middle of National Review's latest latest beg-a-thon -- tied to Michael Mann's suit against NR and Mark Stain -- the fine print:
Sure, we have insurance, and the insurer is paying the bills. But the insurer doesn’t pay the full fare, and I have to tell you, it is quite a fare. Quite. And now as we enter an intense phase of this case, where the legal hours will rise like the sea levels in Professor Mann’s dreams, that fare will become ... stratospheric.
I’m expecting this will cost a couple hundred grand. And maybe more. Again, this is out of pocket.
It's lovely to imagine the rubes swallowing this shite. If NR's insurance company is paying to defend NR, NR shouldn't be incurring anything, unless they're demanding something special they didn't buy insurance for.

In a previous beg-a-thon, almost one year ago, NR claimed they'd raise over $100,000 in a week. And didn't mention that the insurance company was paying. Either the wingnuts grew some brains on Day 8, or NR got its 200K long, long ago. 

C'mon, suckers, give 'til it hurts.  NR can't defend itself unless Golberg's pantry is filled with Ring-Dings and Rich Lowry's booster seat is upholstered with 24 karat gold.


Anonymous said...

The most likely explanation is that their appeal is pure grift. They know they can soak their readers and thus avoid having to ever look for work.

However, it's also possible that their insurer looked at the initial filings of Mann's attorneys and demanded that NR's crew settle the suit. When the NR people refused (Goldberg: "Even though the dictionary says we defamed Mann, it's central to my point that we didn't."), the insurance company refused to underwrite further defense of the indefensible. I have no idea what libel insurance looks like these days. But given NR's track record of being impervious to facts and publishing ANYTHING that comforts their consciouses, I'd not be surprised if their insurance is riddled with escape clauses for the insurance company.

Roger said...

Many liability insurance policies allow the insurer to settle without the insured's consent. Others, such as medical professional liability insurance policies, require the insured's consent. I don't believe for a minute that NR would pass up a settlement whereby they paid nothing, especially if the settlement agreement recited that the settlement was paid by the insurance company and wasn't an admission of liability.

But Fowler says -- a year after fleecing the rubes -- that the insurance company is paying (present tense). It could be that NR wanted its own shyster rather than the one the insurance company agreed to pay for, and NR has that hack as co-counsel on its own dime.

Anonymous said...

Indeed. Perhaps Hanlon's Razor should be applied: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.