TheAntiBoop
If the insurance company can prove negligence though would they expect the money back from Brookfield though?
Ime of insurers they do whatever they can to get a 'guilty' party to cover their costs!!
You're thinking of the insurers of Bridge and Home farms, if those farms had insurance to cover them against losses caused by the IBR. They would pay out to their insureds and then sue Brookfield in order to recover their outlay. This is known as a subrogated claim and the insured is obliged to co-operate with its pursuit e.g. by providing witness evidence. As Bridge and Home farm are looking directly to Brookfield for compensation we have to assume that they did not have cover or have decided not to claim on it.
As for Brookfield's third party liability insurance, interesting that a pp with farming connections has said that they would have been legally obliged to have this cover. I suspect it's been glossed over for dramatic purposes. In the real world that insurance would respond to the claims by Bridge and Home farm's insurers. However there would be no attempt to recoup the payouts from Brookfield (other than, as has been said, by slightly higher premiums), as to do so would negate the whole point of buying insurance- you buy it to cover you against your own negligence. The only possible getout is that then policy might contain a clause about not buying stock not certified as disease-free, allowing insurers to decline cover.