Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

The Impact of Insurance on the Litigation Finance Market

June 7, 2023

The Impact of Insurance on the Litigation Finance Market

The widespread adoption of insurance products within the litigation finance space has been one of the hot topics recently, as it opens the door to a range of opportunities for funders and LPs. IMN’s panel discussion on insurance explored how funders can use these products to lower their rates and hedge investments, the solutions available to de-risk and monetize litigation and arbitration, what is covered and how much coverage is needed, and more. The panel consisted of Brandon Deme, Co-Founder and Director at Factor Risk Management, Sarah Lieber, Managing Director and Co-Head of the Litigation Finance Group at Stifel, Megan Easley, Vice President of Contingent Risk Solutions at CAC Specialty, and Jason Bertoldi, Head of Contingent Risk Solutions at Willis Tower Watson. The panel was moderated by Stephen Davidson, Managing Director and Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk at Aon. The discussion began with the products on offer. Those include judgement preservation insurance (JPI), where a judgement has been reached and the client is looking to insure the core value of that judgement.  Insurers can also protect portfolios of judgements, or even pre-judgement, for example if there is a substantial amount of IP that is expected to generate value, that can also be insured. On the defense-side, clients can use products to insulate them from liability and ring-fence their exposure and damages. ATE is one of the earliest products available in the market—going on 20-25 years now. This applies to adverse costs regimes, which is a huge risk to third-party funders who have to assume that risk, given that they put up the capital. As a result, many funders are approaching insurers looking for ATE insurance.  Some less well-known reasons for procuring insurance include enabling one firm to purchase another firm’s docket, which makes the transaction more attractive to the purchasing party. There is also the opportunity to insure against the risk of a specific motion—in one example, Sarah Lieber of Stifel pointed to a case where the likelihood of a certain motion being adverse to the claimant was less than 1%, but the client wanted a ‘sleep well at night’ type of insurance. The insurer was thrilled to write it, obviously, and from the claimant’s perspective, it was a minimal capital output which protected against a low probability event that would have a devastating outcome if it came to fruition. The good news is that these policies are intended to be very straightforward. For example, JPI is supposed to be a math problem: at final adjudication of a case, you’re supposed to have X. If you don’t, insurance will cover a portion of the rest. Portfolio insurance will include a duration element, but it’s still relatively straightforward. This is not mortgage insurance—these agreements are 10 pages long. The policies are designed to be simple. Typically, the only exclusion is for fraud, as that is what insurers are most concerned about. Perhaps that is one reason they are so popular. Speaking on the London ATE market specifically, Brandon Deme, of Factor Risk Management noted, “The insurance market is expanding. We’ve got insurers that can go up to $25MM in one single investment. When you put that together with the six to seven insurers who are active in the space, you can insure over $100MM. And that wasn’t possible just a few years ago.” The discussion then turned to how we can engender more cooperation between insurers and litigation funders, given that the two parties are at odds on issues relating to disclosure and regulatory requirements. Jason Bertoldi of Willis Tower Watson noted that almost every carrier who offers this product will have some sort of interaction with funders, either directly or indirectly. And while there is opposition to litigation funding from insurers around frivolous litigation and ethical concerns, there are similarly concerns amongst insurers around adverse selection and information asymmetry. So the insurance industry has to get more comfortable with litigation finance, and vice versa. “The funders that we’ve worked with that have looked to insure their investments directly, they’ve been succeeded because by being very transparent in what they provide,” said Bertoldi. “And they’ve dedicated a lot of time to getting insurance done, making sure all litigation counsel is involved on the underwriting side. Doing that, and making sure all information is on a level playing field makes the process go a lot better.” Sarah Lieber took this opportunity to highlight the importance of treating an insurer as a valuable partner, rather than as a means of shifting risk. “We use insurance for financial structuring and accounting, more so than shifting risk,” Lieber noted, “because shifting risk—you’ll do that once, and you’ll never be a participant again in this market. Insurers aren’t stupid, if you give them a pile of crap, they’ll remember you for it.” Megan Easley CAC Specialty pointed out that capacity is a challenge on some risks right now.  The market caps out around $300-$400MM. And while it is very unlikely that there will be total loss risk, insurance in general is very conservative, so there is a gradual shift towards the idea of a total loss. Brandon Deme added that it’s about having the right capacity as well.  You want your insurer to pay the client if everything goes wrong. Some insurers go broke, so having the right capacity is key. One final point from Jason Bertoldi highlighted what he felt is the “most important, and perhaps most unexamined phenomenon happening in our industry,” which he believes is contingent risk. “A lot of carriers are dabbling in contingent risk, who aren’t super active in the space, and they are really trying to get involved,” Bertoldi explained. “Many carriers are hiring dedicated personnel to do contingent risk, because they have the appetite but not the expertise to handle that. That will change over the course of the year as new underwriters come into the space with a litigation background.” In the end, these are two markets—insurance and litigation finance—that must grow comfortable with one another. Insurers are looking for funders who want cheaper capital, or are looking to offload concentration risk, and must be assured that funders aren’t simply shifting the riskiest cases in their investment portfolio over to the insurance side of the equation. For more on insurance and litigation funding, register for our complimentary digital event: Litigation Finance and Legal Insurance. This hour-long, audio-only event will be held on Wednesday, June 14th at 11am ET, and will feature key stakeholders across the insurance space who will discuss the interplay of insurance and legal claims in greater detail. All registrants will receive a recording of the event as well.   *Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article suggested that Brandon Deme’s comment on the size of the Legal Insurance market was in relation to the US market, where there is over $750m in available insurance capacity across two to three dozen insurers.  Mr. Deme was speaking specifically to the London ATE market. That correction has been made. We regret the error. 
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Finance Hits Wall as Bets on Blockbuster Returns Flounder

By John Freund |

At a Fall conference hosted by law firm Brown Rudnick, attendees from across the litigation finance industry voiced growing concern about the sector’s prospects, signaling what may be a turning point for a business long hyped for outsized returns.

According to Yahoo Finance, many in attendance described a drain in new investment and increasing skepticism that big wins, once seen as routine, will materialize. In recent years, funders have aggressively financed high-stakes lawsuits with the expectation that a handful of big verdicts or settlements would deliver significant payouts. But now, as legal outcomes remain unpredictable and returns disappoint, investors appear to be pulling back. Some funders are reportedly limiting new deals, tightening criteria for which cases to support, or reevaluating their business models altogether.

For smaller plaintiffs and everyday plaintiffs’ firms, the contraction in funding availability could prove especially painful. The ripple effects may leave many without access to third-party capital needed to bridge the lengthy wait until verdict. And for funders, the shrinking appetite for risk could mean narrower portfolios and potentially lower returns overall.

The industry’s recalibration may also carry broader implications. Fewer fundings could slow litigation overall. Plaintiffs may see reduced leverage while funders may prioritize lower-risk, smaller-return cases. The shift could further concentrate power among a shrinking number of large, well-capitalized funders.

As the post-conference murmur becomes a chorus, the once-booming litigation finance sector may be entering a more sober phase — where hope for home-run returns gives way to caution, discipline, and perhaps a redefinition of what success looks like.

Case Developments Commercial

Omni Bridgeway Secures EU Victory as Commission Declines Regulation

By John Freund |

Litigation funders scored a major win in Europe this week as the European Commission confirmed it will not pursue new regulations targeting third-party funding. In a decision delivered at the final session of the Commission's High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth, Commissioner Michael McGrath announced that the EU executive will instead focus its efforts on implementing the recently adopted Representative Actions Directive (RAD), which governs collective redress actions brought by consumers and investors.

An article in Law.com notes that the move is being hailed as a significant victory by litigation funders, particularly Omni Bridgeway. Kees de Visser, the firm's Chair of the EMEA Investment Committee, described the decision as a clear endorsement of the litigation funding model and a green light for continued expansion across European jurisdictions. Funders had grown increasingly concerned over the past year that the EU might impose strict rules or licensing requirements, following persistent lobbying by industry critics and certain member states.

Supporters of the Commission’s stance, including the International Legal Finance Association, argue that additional regulation would have harmed access to justice. They contend that third-party funding helps balance the playing field, especially in complex or high-cost litigation, by enabling smaller claimants to pursue valid claims that would otherwise be financially out of reach.

Although concerns around transparency and influence remain part of the wider policy debate, the EU’s current position sends a strong signal that existing legal tools and the RAD framework are sufficient to safeguard the public interest. For funders like Omni Bridgeway, this regulatory reprieve opens the door to deeper engagement in consumer and mass claims across the bloc.

Commercial

Daily Caller Slams Third Party Funding as Funders Face Mounting Media Attacks

By John Freund |

In a harsh opinion piecd, the conservative outlet The Daily Caller blasts third party litigation funding (TPLF), casting the practice as a “scam” that feeds frivolous lawsuits, burdens the economy, and unfairly enriches hidden investors at the expense of all Americans.

The op-ed, penned by Stephen Moore, draws a dire picture: trial lawyers allegedly “suck blood out of the economy” through class action suits that generate millions for attorneys but little for the plaintiffs. The piece points to numbers — a projected $500 billion hit annually to the U.S. economy, and tort cost growth more than double the inflation rate — to argue that the scale of litigation has outpaced any legitimate quest for justice.

Where TPLF comes in, according to Moore, is as the lubrication for what he sees as a booming lawsuit industry. He claims that unknown investors donate capital to lawsuits in exchange for outsized shares of any settlement, not the injured party. These hidden financial interests, he argues, distort the incentives for litigation, encouraging suits where there is no “real” corporate villain, a concern especially pointed at class action and litigation targeting major media or tech firms.

Moore cites roughly $2 billion in new financing arranged in 2024 and a fund pool of $16.1 billion total assets as evidence TPLF is growing rapidly. He endorses the Litigation Transparency Act, legislation introduced by Darrell Issa, which would require disclosure of such funding arrangements in federal civil cases. In Moore’s view, transparency would strip the “cloak of secrecy” from investors and curb what he describes as “jackpot justice,” lawsuits driven less by justice than by profit.

But the tone is unmistakably critical. Moore frames the practice as a parasitic industry that drains capital, discourages investment, and suppresses wages. He cites recent reforms in states like Florida under Ron DeSantis as evidence that limiting litigation can lead to lower insurance premiums and greater economic growth.

For legal funders, this op-ed and others like it underscore a growing media trend: skepticism not just of frivolous lawsuits but of the very model of third party funding. To preserve reputation and legitimacy, funders may need to do more than quietly finance cases. They may need to publicly engage, explain their business model, and advocate for regulatory standards that ensure transparency while preserving access to justice.