Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

Third-party funding of high-stakes litigation can often make the difference between litigating the case or walking away.  The financial arrangement often makes good sense, with investors helping to facilitate the pursuit of bona fide claims that might otherwise be forgone in exchange for a piece of the recovery.  Insurance coverage disputes fit this model well, since those claims typically involve an insured who has already suffered some financial or other hardship and an insurance company with deep resources that refuses to pay the claim.  It should come as little surprise, therefore, that the Insurance Services Office (ISO), an advisory and rating organization for the property/casualty insurance industry, recently approved a new endorsement that requires disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements. The approval comes as courts and state legislatures step up demands for transparency in funding to curtail influence that funders may have over litigation strategy.

When a cyber incident occurs and the insurer pays out the claim, they often face the frustrating reality that pursuing the actual criminals – the threat actors – for indemnification is virtually impossible. Thus, insurers are now turning to subrogation claims against the very cybersecurity vendors entrusted by policyholders to protect their systems. Indeed, insurers are increasingly examining whether outsourced cybersecurity providers may have breached their contractual obligations or failed to deliver adequate protection, leading to the loss. This shift means policyholders may find their cybersecurity vendors facing legal action from their own insurer, creating a new layer of risk in vendor relationships.