Third-party funding of high-stakes litigation can typically make the distinction between litigating the case or strolling away. The monetary association typically makes good sense, with buyers serving to to facilitate the pursuit of bona fide claims that may in any other case be forgone in trade for a bit of the restoration. Insurance coverage protection disputes match this mannequin nicely, since these claims sometimes contain an insured who has already suffered some monetary or different hardship and an insurance coverage firm with deep sources that refuses to pay the declare. It ought to come as little shock, subsequently, that the Insurance coverage Providers Workplace (ISO), an advisory and score group for the property/casualty insurance coverage business, just lately permitted a brand new endorsement that requires disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements. The approval comes as courts and state legislatures step up calls for for transparency in funding to curtail affect that funders could have over litigation technique.
The Endorsement
The endorsement, drafted as a modification of a number of strains of business legal responsibility insurance coverage, together with CGL, operates so as to add a brand new situation to the coverage. The endorsement supplies, in pertinent half:
A. The next is added to the Circumstances part:
Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure
If we and an insured don’t agree whether or not or to what extent a declare or “swimsuit” is roofed by this Coverage, both celebration could make a written demand for mutual disclosure of any “third-party litigation funding settlement(s)” concerning that declare or “swimsuit”.
When this demand is made, every celebration should disclose in writing inside 30 days whether or not they or their lawyer(s) have executed any “third-party litigation funding settlement(s)”. If a celebration or their lawyer(s) have executed any “third-party
litigation funding settlement(s)”, the written disclosure should embrace:
a. A duplicate of such “third-party litigation funding settlement(s)”;
b. The names of every individual or group who has entered into such “third-party litigation funding settlement(s)”;
c. Whether or not such individual or group is required to approve of or be consulted on litigation or settlement selections, and in that case, the character of the phrases and situations referring to that approval or session; and A quick description of the monetary curiosity of any individual or group who supplied such funding.
Every celebration should present to the opposite celebration a duplicate of any replace of their written disclosure inside 30 days of:
a. Any change within the above info in Paragraphs by d.; or
b. When the events or their lawyer(s) have executed any “third-party litigation funding settlement(s)” after the preliminary demand.
The endorsement additionally goes on so as to add a definition of “Third-party litigation funding settlement” that broadly consists of any settlement to offer litigation funding to a celebration or its attorneys.
Thus, in sum, the endorsement makes it a situation of protection that the insured disclose all funding agreements that pertain to the topic declare or lawsuit upon request by the insurer, even the place the funding settlement belongs to counsel.
The Potential Issues
1. Situation of Protection.
Reasonably than add the disclosure requirement as a post-loss responsibility that the insurer may invoke in sure instances, the disclosure is added as a situation to protection, which means {that a} failure to fulfill that situation may jeopardize protection underneath the coverage with out regard to a selected declare. It likewise probably affords the insurer a treatment of coverage rescission, which carries way more extreme penalty than extraordinary breach.
2. Unilateral, Not Mutual.
The endorsement purports to require a mutual disclosure that may be invoked by a request from both the insurer or the policyholder. To name the disclosure mutual is facially misleading. First, insurers don’t use litigation funding, and definitely not on any common foundation. Thus, it’s extremely unlikely that an insurer is ever going to have a litigation funding settlement to reveal. And why would it not? The insurer has deep sources, so there is no such thing as a cause for an insurer to require monetary backing and no cause to share a considerable portion of any restoration with a litigation funder. Second, when an insurer is defending underneath a reservation of rights, the insurer is funding the protection. The insured would by no means have funding to reveal. Certainly, the litigation funding mannequin doesn’t work the place the insured is the legal responsibility defendant, since there can’t be a restoration from which any funder may recoup its funding, a lot much less a multiplier on its deployed capital. Thus, since funding would virtually by no means be a problem with regard to protection of the underlying declare, the disclosure should be geared towards protection litigation, the place the insurer is litigating with its insured over monies that the insurer holds, and the insured is preventing to recuperate. This results in the endorsement’s overbreadth, amongst different issues.
3. Potential Overbreadth and Conflicts.
The endorsement is also grossly overbroad. The endorsement requires the disclosure of “any” funding settlement that considerations the declare or swimsuit. Such broad wording would come with each the underlying litigation and any subsequent associated protection litigation. Nonetheless, though the endorsement purports to embody the underlying litigation that has led to protection, there would by no means be a necessity for funding in reference to that litigation since it’s upon the insurer to defend in step with its reservation of rights that could be a prerequisite to any disclosure.
Moreover, the disclosure obligation extends past the policyholder and its insurers to incorporate policyholder counsel. That is problematic on a number of ranges. In virtually all cases, counsel will not be a celebration to the insurance coverage coverage and, thus, by no means agreed to be contractually sure by the phrases and situations of protection. But a failure to abide may jeopardize protection for its shopper. This presents a battle of curiosity between the policyholder and its attorneys the place the attorneys are unwilling or unable to reveal their counsel-side or portfolio-level funding. It likewise places counsel in a Catch-22, the place it doesn’t matter what counsel chooses to do, it’s going to both violate the situation to protection or violate its personal settlement to maintain its funding settlement confidential.
4. Discovery Implications.
The endorsement can also have discovery implications. For instance, courts in Delaware and New Jersey allow additional discovery about funders provided that the requesting celebration demonstrates good trigger or exhibits the funder has authority over litigation selections. In jurisdictions with related guidelines, required disclosures could expedite expanded discovery as insurers will be anticipated to wish to absolutely perceive the monetary backing of its adversary in any important litigation. Conversely, in jurisdictions that don’t ordinarily allow funder discovery, the brand new funder disclosure endorsement may open the door to funder discovery for the reason that funding agreements will turn into a part of the evidentiary file upon a disclosure demand underneath the coverage.
***
At backside, as litigation funding continues to evolve, coverage endorsements mandating the disclosure of litigation funding agreements stand to play a crucial and probably disruptive function in protection litigation by, amongst different issues, probably forcing a battle between the policyholder and its protection counsel the place the regulation agency has engaged in a counsel-side funding settlement that it was not required to open up to its shopper.
