Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation

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
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.