Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is a Lifeline for Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck
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.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Secures Landmark Win Against BHP in Brazil Dam Case

By John Freund |

In a major breakthrough for cross-border group litigation, Pogust Goodhead has secured a resounding victory in its long-running claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Brazil. The UK High Court has ruled BHP liable for the disaster, which killed 19 people and unleashed a wave of toxic sludge through the Rio Doce basin, displacing entire communities and leaving lasting environmental damage.

According to Non-Billable, the ruling confirms BHP’s liability under both Brazilian environmental law and the Brazilian Civil Code. In rejecting the company’s jurisdictional and limitation defenses, the court made clear that English law recognizes the right of over 600,000 Brazilian claimants to pursue redress in UK courts. The judgment underscores BHP’s operational and strategic control over the Samarco joint venture and found that the company was aware of critical dam defects more than a year before the collapse. The attempt to distance itself through the argument of being an indirect polluter was also dismissed.

This outcome is a critical milestone in one of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK. A trial on damages is now scheduled for October 2026, with case management proceedings set to resume in December.

The win comes amid internal turbulence at Pogust Goodhead, including recent leadership changes and reported tensions with its litigation finance backers, but the firm remains on course to press forward with what could be a multibillion-dollar compensation phase.

Commercial

Incentive Payments Not Essential for Named Plaintiffs, Study Finds

By John Freund |

A new empirical study by Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School challenges a widely held assumption in class action litigation: that incentive payments are necessary to recruit named plaintiffs. The research, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, analyzed federal class-action filings from January 2017 through May 2024, using data drawn from the legal-tech platform Lex Machina. It leveraged a natural experiment created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2020 ruling that barred incentive payments in the 11th Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) while other circuits continued permitting them.

An article in Reuters states that according to the analysis, the volume of class-actions filed in the 11th Circuit did not meaningfully decline relative to other circuits after the ban on incentive payments. In other words, the absence of such payments did not appear to impair the ability of plaintiffs’ counsel to find willing named plaintiffs.

Fitzpatrick and his co-author, graduate student Colton Cronin, observed that although courts routinely approve modest incentive awards (averaging about $7,500 in non-securities class actions) to compensate the named plaintiff’s extra effort post-settlement, the data suggest that payments may not be a driving factor in recruitment.

Fitzpatrick emphasizes that this is not to say incentive payments have no role. He notes that there remains a moral argument for compensating named plaintiffs who shoulder additional burdens. These include depositions, discovery responses, trial participation, and public exposure. Yet the study’s finding is notable. Motivation for class-representation may be rooted more in altruism, reputation or justice-seeking than in straightforward financial gain.

For the legal-funding industry and class-action litigators, the findings are significant. They suggest that reliance on incentive payments to secure named plaintiffs may be less critical than previously assumed, potentially lowering a transactional cost input in structuring class settlements. On the other hand, third-party funders and litigation financiers should consider how the supply of willing named plaintiffs might remain stable even in jurisdictions restricting such payments.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Merricks Calls for Ban on Secret Arbitrations in Funded Claims

By John Freund |

Walter Merricks, the class representative behind the landmark Mastercard case, has publicly criticized the use of confidential arbitration clauses in litigation funding agreements tied to collective proceedings.

According to Legal Futures, Merricks spoke at an event where he argued that such clauses can leave class representatives exposed and unsupported, particularly when disputes arise with funders. He emphasized that disagreements between funders and class representatives should be heard in open proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), not behind closed doors.

His comments come in the wake of the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard claim—significantly lower than the original £14 billion figure cited in early filings. During the settlement process, Merricks became the target of an arbitration initiated by his funder, Innsworth Capital. The arbitration named him personally, prompting Mastercard to offer an indemnity of up to £10 million to shield him from personal financial risk.

Merricks warned that the confidentiality of arbitration allows funders to exert undue pressure on class representatives, who often lack institutional backing or leverage. He called on the CAT to scrutinize and reject funding agreements that designate arbitration as the sole forum for dispute resolution. In his view, transparency and public accountability are vital in collective actions, especially when funders and claimants diverge on strategy or settlement terms.

His remarks highlight a growing debate in the legal funding industry over the proper governance of funder-representative relationships. If regulators move to curtail arbitration clauses, it could force funders to navigate public scrutiny and recalibrate their contractual protections in UK group litigation.