Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation

LF Dealmakers Panel: Exploring Use Cases of Insurance Across the Litigation Landscape

September 27, 2023

LF Dealmakers Panel: Exploring Use Cases of Insurance Across the Litigation Landscape

A panel consisting of Rebecca Berrebi, Founder & CEO of Avenue 33, Daniel Bond, Senior VP of DUAL North America, Jarvis Buckman, Managing Partner at Leste, and Steven Penaro, Partner at Alston & Bird, discussed the intersection of insurance and litigation funding. The panel was moderated by Stephen Kyriacou, Managing Director & Senior Lawyer at Aon. Stephen Kyriacou opened by pointing out how litigation risk insurance began on the defense-side, yet plaintiff-side insurance solutions are now dominating the legal insurance space. Over 90% of Aon’s litigation policies are plaintiff side. He then began the discussion on the topic of judgment preservation insurance. Mr. Kyriacou introduced a hypothetical IP case where the funder and attorney each expect to earn $20MM, and the claimant will take home $60MM. The question was asked, why should funders or attorneys look to insure their award? Jarvis Buckman pointed out the risk mitigation strategy of protecting either part or all of his judgment, in order to take some chips off the table. Rebecca Berrebi added that having an insurance-backed return helps the company book those returns on the current books and not rely as heavily on the final outcome. So even when there is an expectation of collection, insurance can often make sense. Stephen Kyriacou then laid out the three components of a submission package (at least as far as Aon is concerned):
  • Case overview memorandum – Laying out counsel’s view of the strength of the judgment
  • The risk profile – What the risks of the claim are, and the likelihood of their outcomes
  • Aon’s perspective on the insurance – Explaining the motivations for seeking insurance, and the coverage being sought
Daniel Bond pointed out that there is alignment between how he approaches a claim with the process laid out by Stephen Kyriacou. He enjoys having that ‘new case feeling’ which you don’t often get as an attorney. The variability of outcomes provides multiple paths for underwriting, which is different than being an attorney and knowing that there is a binary outcome to your case. Mr. Bond noted that the process involves a lot of communication, to understand his counter-party and what their goals are, along with the business alignments and counter-party risks. Steven Penaro added that the matters have been heavily vetted by the time they get to his desk, as an underwriting counsel. So that implies that there is already a lot of clarification around where things stand. He studies the submission documents and develops an underwriting report and sets up an underwriting call, where the interested parties can discuss and ask questions. Typically, the process takes four to six weeks from when they get the first call until when the policy binds. Mr. Bond added that having people come in with a fresh set of eyes and ‘beat the hell out of the case’ at that juncture in its lifecycle is an extremely valuable process, even notwithstanding the insurance component. Just having experts evaluate the case is a powerful resource. The panel then covered how judgment preservation insurance might pay out, client interests around insuring legal claims, and how clients might pull proceeds from an insurance claim through insurance-backed judgment monetization. The panel offered a thorough deep dive into the insurance landscape—a topic that will no doubt be covered in future events, as these two industries continue to collaborate on mutually beneficial products and services.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.