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

People in a meeting room, sitting around a table, brainstorming. Glass wall reflects outside.
By Certum Group Team December 4, 2025
Certum Group, a leader in litigation risk management, is pleased to announce the launch of Certum Legal Solutions (CLS), a managed services organization (MSO) that helps law firms handle their day-to-day operations. CLS expands Certum Group’s platform beyond litigation finance and insurance into technology-driven operational support for law firms. With this launch, Certum is now the only provider to offer funding, insurance, and operational services through a single, integrated platform. Built by trial lawyers and experienced legal operations professionals, CLS delivers end-to-end support for mass tort and single-event litigation practices, including intake, pre-litigation investigation, plaintiff discovery support, settlement claims processing, and client communications. The CLS platform leverages proprietary and heavily customized tools such as integrations for rapid medical record collection, a mobile client app, automated document workflows, electronic signature systems, and an in house call center to streamline case management and boost efficiency. CLS currently manages thousands of cases for law firm clients across the United States and is designed to scale quickly to meet changing caseloads while maintaining control and delivering a consistent client experience. “Our clients have long relied on Certum to mitigate litigation risk and financial risk; with Certum Legal Solutions, we can now mitigate operational risk as well,” added David Diamond, Managing Director at Certum Group. “Because CLS is built the way trial lawyers think about building cases, from intake to resolution, firms get a turnkey, technology forward solution that measurably improves efficiency and outcomes,” said Asim M. Badaruzzaman, CEO of Certum Legal Solutions. CLS originated from a services operation launched in 2024 and was acquired by Certum Group in 2025. The new business line uses a customized fee for service model that aligns pricing with the scope and value of each engagement, allowing firms to avoid the capital costs and staffing requirements of building these capabilities themselves. While the initial focus is on mass tort and single event, Certum plans to extend CLS capabilities to additional practice areas over time, further expanding the company’s comprehensive approach to funding, insurance, and operational support. For more information, please contact: David Diamond Managing Director, Certum Group ddiamond@certumgroup.com Asim M. Badaruzzaman CEO, Certum Legal Solutions asim.badaruzzaman@certumlegalsolutions.com
A gavel rests on top of a stack of US one-hundred dollar bills.
By Kirstine Rogers November 6, 2025
The recent legislative push—then retreat—to impose a tax on litigation funding returns didn’t change the law, but it clarified what’s at stake. It shined a spotlight on the solution that litigation funding provides for the legal industry and to intellectual property owners. Litigation finance doesn’t present a taxation loophole to close. It’s a process that allows plaintiffs with strong claims—and limited resources—to make it to the courthouse steps. In the IP world, where the costs of litigation can eclipse the means of most inventors, startups, and universities, non-recourse litigation funding often is the only way to level the playing field. The investment risks for funders are high; the returns shouldn’t be penalized. The right policy response isn’t punitive taxation or blanket disclosure of sensitive funding terms, but acceptance of funding as a necessary tool and tailored transparency under the court’s supervision, so that financial disparity doesn’t become a tactical weapon.  The goal is simple: Keep the courthouse doors open while maintaining fairness and integrity in the adversarial system.
Statue of Lady Justice holding scales and sword, blindfolded.
By W. Tyler Perry October 23, 2025
It feels like every couple of weeks an article appears lamenting the rise of litigation finance as the death of capitalism and the birth of something monstrous. The most recent chorus began over the summer when the CEO of Chubb called litigation finance “ a hidden tax on society ” in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. A month later, the CEO of The Hartford grieved on an investor call that litigation finance has “turned our judicial system into a gambling system.” And just last month, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association ’s Senior Vice President of Federal Government Relations exclaimed: “Too many baseless claims, filed by lawyers motivated by profit are clogging our legal system with unnecessary lawsuits, increasing costs and delaying swift resolution of genuine legal claims.”  As someone who has been a big firm defense lawyer, a small firm plaintiff lawyer, and now a litigation funder, I can confidently say that these arguments fundamentally misunderstand litigation finance and its incentives, while simultaneously conflating the interests of large repeat defendants with those of society writ large.