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

Westfleet Insider 2025: Commercial Litigation Finance Rebounds as Capital Constraints Persist

By John Freund |

The U.S. commercial litigation finance market posted a notable recovery in 2025, with new capital commitments climbing approximately 23% year-over-year to $2.8 billion across 346 new deals, according to the seventh annual Westfleet Insider report.

As reported by Westfleet Advisors, the rebound follows two consecutive years of contraction — commitments had slipped from $2.7 billion in 2023 to $2.3 billion in 2024 — and signals renewed deployment activity after a period of broad market retrenchment.

Despite the headline recovery, the data paints a nuanced picture. The uptick was driven by incremental deployment among a small cohort of established funders rather than any broad-based expansion of available capital. Of the 39 funders identified as active in the U.S. commercial market, a notable subset deployed little to no new capital during the reporting period, and only one new entrant emerged. Several funders are actively winding down operations, pointing to a quiet but ongoing consolidation across the industry.

Deal economics remained largely stable. The average transaction size held steady at approximately $8.1 million overall, though the composition shifted meaningfully: single-matter deals contracted to $4.5 million from $6.6 million the prior year, while portfolio transactions expanded to $19.6 million from $16.5 million. Portfolio structures continued to dominate, representing 64% of new commitments.

One of the more significant structural shifts in 2025 was the decline in Big Law utilization, with the share of total commitments directed to the 200 largest U.S. firms dropping to 24% from 37% in 2024. Client-directed deals edged ahead of firm-directed arrangements for the first time in recent years, representing 52% of commitments.

Other notable findings include patent litigation accounting for 27% of funded matters, contingent risk insurance coverage ticking up to 21% of deals, and claim monetization declining to 17% of new commitments from 26% in 2024.

Commercial

Gen Re Calls for EU-Wide Third-Party Litigation Funding Regulation

By John Freund |

The reinsurance industry is adding its voice to growing calls for a unified regulatory framework for third-party litigation funding across Europe.

As reported by Gen Re, the European litigation funding market now includes more than 300 funders operating with limited transparency and fragmented oversight across EU member states. The publication highlights a significant regulatory gap, with most countries allowing TPLF under general contract law while lacking specific rules around disclosure, conflicts of interest, or funder control over litigation strategy.

The Netherlands and Germany lead Europe as the most developed markets, while Ireland still prohibits outside litigation funding under common law. France, Spain, and Portugal have introduced or are considering consumer-focused legislation, but no harmonized EU-wide framework exists.

Insurance Europe and the Reinsurance Advisory Board have both called for regulation at the EU level, arguing it is necessary to maintain trust in the justice and financial systems. Their primary concerns include a lack of transparency about funding arrangements, potential conflicts of interest, rising litigation costs, and insufficient investor oversight.

Proponents of the industry counter that professional funders improve access to justice for under-resourced claimants and help filter out weak claims through rigorous due diligence. A cross-sector group of business associations issued a joint statement in January 2026 renewing their call for proportionate, harmonized EU-level rules.

Commercial

The Next Battleground in Consumer Legal Funding: Discovery and Transparency

By John Freund |

A growing legal debate is taking shape over whether consumer legal funding agreements should be subject to discovery during litigation, with significant implications for plaintiffs and the funding industry alike.

As reported by the National Law Review, Eric Schuller of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding argues that mandatory disclosure requirements create strategic advantages for defendants by exposing plaintiffs' financial vulnerabilities and sensitive underwriting information.

Defendants and insurers have increasingly pushed for access to funding agreements, framing their requests as transparency measures. Proponents say disclosure could reveal whether funders are influencing litigation strategy and promote accountability in the civil justice system.

Critics counter that forcing plaintiffs to produce funding contracts may discourage injured individuals from seeking legitimate financial assistance during lengthy cases. Consumer legal funding arrangements are non-recourse, meaning plaintiffs repay only if their case results in a successful settlement or verdict.

Several states have proposed or enacted laws requiring varying degrees of disclosure — from simple notification that funding exists to full production of contract terms. The debate reflects broader tensions between transparency and consumer protection that continue to shape litigation funding regulation across the country.