August 23, 2021

Litigation Buyout Insurance: How Does It Work?

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter


Ross Weiner

|

August 23, 2021

In July 2021, Risk Settlements co-presented a PLI  webinar  on how litigation buyout insurance (LBO insurance) can help keep companies “deal ready.” Following up on that presentation, we thought a brief article detailing the nuts and bolts of litigation buyout insurance might help those interested in pursuing such a policy to determine if it is right for them. Below, we have outlined some of the most common questions we receive about the logistics behind LBO insurance and our thoughts on each.

LBO insurance is an insurance product through which the insurer agrees, in exchange for a premium, to take on the financial risks and liabilities associated with a known, threatened, or existing class action, antitrust, or non-class case at any time prior to a final settlement. It is like buying fire insurance, only instead of doing so to cover the risk of a fire, you do so because you  already know  your house is on fire. The only remaining question is how much damage (or loss) will there be?

Every LBO policy is for an amount certain. In other words, even if you want to insure an active litigation for “all the case is worth,” due to applicable insurance regulations, you cannot ask for an open-ended policy that covers all loss from a case. Rather, you must decide in advance exactly how much coverage you are looking for.

It goes without saying that every LBO policy is individually tailored, designed to help a company achieve its business, financial, and legal objectives. But if you are thinking about procuring LBO insurance, you should consider both the amount of coverage you may need and how you’d like to structure the policy, including the age-old question of retention vs. premium.

Policies are customized to address the unique legal issues facing a particular company and can be crafted to address a full spectrum of unique litigation risks. Once a policy is in place, the insurance carrier may take over defense of a case and pay defense costs, covers any adverse judgments or fee awards, or both.

The short answer: yes.

One paradigm example sticks out. In 2020, a private equity owned human resources company was finalizing a sale when it received a letter from a plaintiff’s attorney threatening a wage and hour lawsuit. The company promptly disclosed the letter to the potential buyer, after which the potential buyer expressed serious reservations about completing the transaction. The selling company, in consultation with its lawyers, estimated the potential exposure at $11 million.

At this point in time, the selling company turned to Risk Settlements to determine if there was an insurance-based solution that would assuage the buyer. After diligencing the case, weighing the risks, and evaluating comparable cases (and settlements) involving the same plaintiff’s counsel, Risk Settlements was able to price the risk. For less than $3 million, the company was able to procure a policy covering more than its estimated exposure, thereby giving the buyer the comfort it needed to close the sale. The transaction was saved.

A common question companies often ask is what costs—incurred by a company in the normal course of litigation—are not covered by the LBO insurance policy? The following are some standard exclusions that an insurer generally will not cover:

  • Settlements entered into  without  the insurer’s consent;
  • Costs above a certain (negotiated) materiality threshold incurred without the insurer’s consent;
  • “Overhead” costs related to litigation cooperation (i.e., the insurer will not pay for employee time cooperating (e.g. a 30(b)(6) deposition)) or traditional overhead expenses (e.g. photocopies); and
  • Loss arising from the insured’s failure to cooperate.

This is an issue also addressed in the policy itself. In our experience, negotiations surrounding the power to settle a matter are often the most contentious and involved. From the insurer’s perspective, it does not want the obligation to settle a matter at a significant loss if a better outcome can be salvaged. And from the insured’s perspective, it wants to be able to help drive a matter to its conclusion to try and minimize distraction stemming from litigation. So how does this play out?

The following questions help guide the discussion as the insurer and the insured consider their positions:

  • Will a settlement be purely monetary or will there likely be an injunctive relief component?
  • Will the company be required to admit wrongdoing as part of a likely settlement, and if so, could this cause harm in other ancillary matters?
  • Could a sizable settlement encourage either future private litigation or follow-on regulatory investigations?

The answers to these questions (among others) will help the parties think through how they view settlement and which party (insurer or insured) should control the decision.

Simply put, the most frequent reason cited by companies looking for LBO insurance is that (a) a third party (e.g., a potential acquiror) is concerned about a litigation exposure; (b) the third party is unwilling to act (e.g. complete an acquisition) unless and until the risk is abated; and (c) there is either insufficient time or interest to settle the matter promptly.

For those looking to close an M&A transaction, LBO insurance offers certain advantages over the alternatives. Yes, sometimes a large escrow can make the buyer comfortable, but that ties up the money for the life of the litigation, which can often go on for years. And overpaying for a quick settlement to make the case go away will take cash out of seller’s pocket and leave the buyer in worse fiscal shape. LBO insurance is far superior to both.

When considering whether to insure, insurance carriers place a premium (pun intended) on candor. Companies looking to transfer exposure should always be upfront with material risks related to the matter. Unfortunately, and all too frequently, we have received submissions where potentially problematic—but potentially solvable—issues are not disclosed at all, only to be discovered during diligence through a Google search. Such omissions of clear red flags can do irreparable harm to the process, leaving the insurer unable to trust the potential insured and unlikely to offer coverage.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of materials that the carrier may require before deciding on the matter:

  • Current counsel’s analysis of the merits, case status, and potential damages;
  • Current counsel’s budget; and
  • The history (if any) of settlement negotiations.

One benefit of seeking out LBO insurance—even if the company does not ultimately purchase it—is the opportunity to have another set of eyes review the risk a company is facing. Indeed, not just any set of eyes, but those of an entity looking to back the risk financially. In our experience, the insurer’s assessment can help focus the company on the strengths and weaknesses of the case, all of which inures to the company’s benefit as it proceeds with litigation (either with or without insurance coverage).

***

Ultimately, LBO insurance can be adapted to fit a wide array of complex litigation issues. It can help remove obstacles from the path of deals and assist companies to prepare for a sale. And at its core, it aims to take uncertainty off the books and allow companies to move forward with transactions that will help them grow and thrive.

This article has been published in the  PLI Chronicle: Insights and Perspectives for the Legal Communityhttps://bit.ly/3fMTISg.

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

By Certum Team March 5, 2026
Above the Law, a leading blog focused on the legal industry, recently highlighted Certum Group’s litigation finance fellowship, noting the opportunity for law students and business students to gain “a four-week, hands-on immersion in what it actually looks like when capital meets complex litigation.” “To succeed, lawyers need to understand not only doctrine but also finance. Law schools are beginning to reflect that shift, and students want to understand it,” Certum’s William Marra told Above the Law. “Our Summer Fellowship is about opening that door for both law and business students, and giving them meaningful exposure to the capital side of litigation.”  Applications for the fellowship are due on March 31, 2026, and should include a resume, law school transcript, and a brief 250-word statement of interest. Applications should be sent to SummerFellowship@CertumGroup.com . Above the Law’s coverage is available here , and Certum’s application page for the fellowship is available here .
By Certum Group March 2, 2026
For the third consecutive year, Certum Group will host one or more summer fellows, introducing accomplished law students and business students to the growing field of litigation finance. The Certum Group Litigation Finance Fellowship provides top law students with an opportunity to gain hands-on experience in the rapidly growing fields of litigation finance and litigation insurance. Fellows will evaluate litigation funding submissions, draft memoranda analyzing legal and damages issues, help structure and negotiate funding agreements, and contribute to marketing and business development initiatives. They will work closely with Certum’s experienced team of litigation finance, litigation insurance, and investment professionals. Throughout the program, Fellows will develop a practical understanding of how claimholders, law firms, insurers, and capital providers assess litigation risk — and how capital can be deployed as a strategic tool in complex disputes. Further information about the fellowship and instructions about how to apply are available here.
By Certum Group February 24, 2026
Columbia Law School’s blog on corporations and the public markets, The CLS Blue Sky Blog, recently featured the scholarly work on litigation finance written by Indiana University Business School Professor Suneal Bedi and Certum’s William C. Marra. In their blog post, Bedi and Marra discuss their article Litigation Finance in the Market Square , which was recently published in the Southern California Law Review. Their work reframes litigation finance as a capital markets innovation rather than solely a civil justice mechanism. While much of the public debate has centered on questions of disclosure, control, and settlement incentives, Bedi and Marra emphasize that legal claims often represent significant but illiquid contingent assets on a firm’s balance sheet. When policymakers regulate litigation finance, they are regulating not just the legal business but the capital markets. And they are regulating capital markets in a way that is more likely to harm small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) while protecting large companies from competition.  The full blog post is available here.