Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation Special Features

Maximizing Claimant Success: Harnessing the Synergy of Litigation Funding and Litigation Insurance

June 8, 2023

Maximizing Claimant Success: Harnessing the Synergy of Litigation Funding and Litigation Insurance

“The emergence of legal insurance products has been a game changer in allowing both clients and law firms to lock in judgments, ring fence potentially deleterious outcomes, and provide for certainty where uncertainty used to be the rule.” – Ross Weiner, Legal Director at Certum Group  Uncertainties abound in today’s complex legal landscape, leaving individuals and businesses vulnerable to the high costs associated with legal disputes. A pair of innovative solutions–litigation funding and litigation insurance–have emerged as powerful tools that, when utilized in tandem, can offer peace of mind to those involved in legal proceedings. In this article, we delve into the benefits inherent in synergizing these two forms of financial assistance, exploring the various types of litigation insurance, the individuals and entities that benefit from these products, and the numerous advantages they bring to the table.  Types of Litigation Insurance Products Below are popular forms of litigation insurance: 
  • After-the-Event (ATE) Insurance: ATE insurance policies are designed to protect litigants against the opposing side’s costs and expenses, should the claimants fail to win their case. It is typically purchased by plaintiffs, though some insurers do issue ATE insurance to defendants. These policies typically cover adverse costs, including the opponent’s legal fees and disbursements. ATE insurance is purchased after the event which prompts the claim, but before the legal proceeding initiates (the closer to the start of the proceeding, typically the more expensive ATE insurance becomes). As ATE insurance protects against an adverse costs award, it is not applicable in the United States, which does not have a cost-shifting regime in place (except in extremely rare circumstances). 
  • Before-the-Event (BTE) Insurance: BTE insurance, also known as legal expense insurance, offers coverage for potential legal costs before a dispute arises. This product provides coverage for legal expenses in various scenarios, such as personal injury claims or contract disputes. 
  • Judgement Preservation Insurance (JPI): JPI is exactly as it sounds–insurance that protects a claim or group of claims which have already received judgements. JPI is very straightforward, and essentially meant to be a math problem: If your judgment is X, and you receive Y, the insurer will cover the difference or a portion thereof. As such, documentation is minimal, with fraudulent activity being the primary exclusion inserted into the agreement.  According to Stephen Kyriacou, Jr., Managing Director and Senior Lawyer at Aon: “Judgment preservation insurance can be used for more than simply mitigating appellate risk. Judgment holders have used it to accelerate the recognition of judgment-related gains in their earnings, to monetize judgments while appeals are still pending, and even to convert more expensive unsecured debt into less expensive debt secured by the policy, since the policy effectively guarantees a minimum recovery so long as there is no collection or enforcement risk associated with the judgment.”
  • Litigation Funding Insurance: Litigation funding insurance is a specialized form of coverage designed to protect litigation funders, who provide financial support to claimants in exchange for a share of the proceeds, if the case is successful. This insurance safeguards funders against the risk of losing their investment in the event of an unsuccessful outcome. It provides critical protection against adverse cost orders and helps to minimize the financial risks associated with funding litigation. Stephen Kyriacou explains: “It has been a years-long challenge persuading certain insurers to consider insuring litigation finance-related risks, but we’ve seen recently that insurers have become much more willing to consider high-quality risks from funders when all parties work together to creatively structure coverage and properly align interests and incentives. As more insurers continue to come around to the idea of insuring funders over the coming years, the litigation and contingent risk insurance market will continue to grow, and even more value-creating solutions will become available to litigation finance firms.”
  • Portfolio Insurance: Portfolio insurance, also known as litigation risk portfolio insurance, is a comprehensive solution that covers multiple litigation cases within a portfolio. This type of insurance allows law firms, corporations, or litigation finance companies to spread the risk across a range of cases, reducing their exposure to any individual matter. Portfolio insurance offers cost predictability and stability, enabling stakeholders to manage their litigation risks more effectively and allocate resources strategically.
There have been other ancillary uses of insurance, such as when one firm looks to purchase the docket of another firm’s cases, or to insure a portfolio of IPs that have an associated value. As the Insurance and Litigation Funding industries continue to become intertwined, expect more bespoke products to emerge.   Users of Litigation Insurance Products There are three typical users of litigation insurance products: 
  • Individual Litigants: Individuals involved in legal disputes, such as personal injury claims or family law matters, can benefit from litigation insurance products. ATE and BTE insurance provide financial protection, enabling individuals who seek justice without the fear of exorbitant legal expenses.
  • Businesses and Corporations: Litigation can pose significant financial risks for businesses and corporations, diverting resources from core operations. Litigation insurance products help shield companies from the potentially crippling costs associated with commercial disputes, professional negligence claims, or intellectual property conflicts.
  • Law Firms: Law firms can also benefit from litigation insurance products. By offering these products to their clients, law firms enhance their value proposition, differentiate themselves in the market, and provide an additional layer of protection to their clients.
Benefits of Litigation Insurance Products The benefits of utilizing litigation insurance are clear-cut: 
  • Cost Mitigation: Litigation insurance products alleviate the financial burden associated with legal disputes. They cover legal costs, including solicitor fees, expert witness expenses, court fees, and opponent’s costs, reducing the financial risks for litigants and providing access to justice for those who might not have the means otherwise.
  • Risk Management: Litigation is inherently uncertain, with outcomes dependent on various factors. Litigation insurance acts as a risk management tool, providing litigants with the confidence to pursue their case knowing that their financial interests are protected. It enables litigants to make informed decisions based on the merits of their case rather than financial constraints. 
  • Enhanced Negotiation Power: Litigation insurance empowers litigants during settlement negotiations. With insurance coverage in place, litigants can approach negotiations from a position of strength, knowing that they have the financial resources to endure protracted litigation. This can lead to more favorable settlement outcomes and increased bargaining power.
  • Access to Justice: Perhaps one of the most significant benefits of litigation insurance is its role in ensuring access to justice for individuals and businesses. By removing financial barriers, these products level the playing field and enable litigants to pursue their legal rights, even against well-funded opponents.
Litigation funders understand the ‘access to justice’ problem quite well. Litigation insurance further contributes to the democratization of our legal system by ensuring that even if the claim is unsuccessful, claimants are protected from the potentially crippling costs of litigation. This assurance encourages claimants who may be otherwise deterred by the financial risks associated with litigation to pursue their claims with confidence. Consequently, the collective impact of litigation funding and insurance is an increased participation of claimants, a broader range of cases being pursued, and a more inclusive legal system. As Rebecca Berrebi, Founder and CEO of Avenue 33 points out, “The increased availability of insurance has enhanced the options available to claimants and law firms when it comes to protecting the downside of litigation. Only time will tell whether or not the litigation-focused products offerings will remain cost-effective additives to litigation finance.” Litigation Funding & Litigation Insurance Litigation insurance products have emerged as valuable tools in the legal landscape, offering financial protection and peace of mind to those navigating the complexities of litigation. Whether individuals seeking justice, businesses guarding against commercial risks, or law firms enhancing their service offerings, litigation insurance provides a range of benefits.  Similarly, litigation funding affords plaintiffs the opportunity to see their case to fruition, when there might otherwise be no avenue for remuneration. By combining litigation funding and litigation insurance, claimants gain access to a tailored financial solution that meets their specific needs. Each claim has unique financial requirements, and the flexibility of these tools allows claimants to structure a financial package that aligns with their case’s dynamics. This synergy offers claimants the freedom to allocate capital as required, covering legal costs, expert fees, and other case-related expenses while safeguarding against the risk of adverse costs. As the demand for these products continues to grow, they will mature into an integral part of the litigation landscape, empowering litigants and transforming the dynamics of legal proceedings for years to come. According to Boris Ziser, Partner and Co-Head of Finance and Derivatives at Schulte Roth and Zabel: “The growth of insurance products for the litigation funding space can be a real game changer, impacting not only the cost of capital, but expanding the universe of investors able to add this sector to their portfolios.” By integrating these two solutions, claimants can significantly enhance their prospects for success while reducing financial risks. This harmonious approach not only levels the playing field between claimants and well-resourced opponents, but also promotes a fairer and more accessible legal system.

Commercial

View All
Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.

Case Developments Commercial

UK Court Approves Final Settlements in Car Delivery Charges Class Action

By John Freund |

Final settlements have been approved in a long running UK class action concerning allegedly excessive car delivery charges, bringing closure to a case that has been closely watched by the group litigation and litigation funding communities. The approval marks the end of proceedings brought on behalf of thousands of motorists who claimed they were overcharged by car manufacturers and dealers for vehicle delivery fees.

An article in Fleet News reports that the High Court has signed off on settlements resolving claims that delivery charges applied to new vehicles were inflated and not reflective of actual costs. The litigation alleged that consumers were systematically overcharged, with delivery fees presented as fixed and unavoidable despite wide variation in underlying logistics expenses. The case was pursued as a collective action, reflecting the growing use of group litigation structures in the UK consumer space.

The approved settlements provide compensation to eligible claimants and formally conclude a dispute that has been progressing for several years. While specific financial terms were not positioned as headline figures, the outcome underscores the practical realities of resolving complex, high volume consumer claims through negotiated settlements rather than trial. The court’s approval confirms that the agreements were considered fair and reasonable for class members, a key requirement in representative and opt out style actions.

The case also highlights the important role litigation funding continues to play in enabling large scale consumer claims to proceed. Claims involving relatively modest individual losses often depend on third party capital to cover legal costs, expert evidence, and administrative infrastructure. Without funding, such cases would typically be economically unviable despite their collective significance.