Newsletters
Risk Central
Digital EditionUnderstanding Legal System Abuse: How Lawsuit Exploitation Drives Up Costs for Everyone
The American civil justice system was designed to provide fair compensation to those who have been wronged. Increasingly, however, that system is being exploited through practices collectively known as legal system abuse—a phenomenon that has contributed to skyrocketing insurance costs, inflated consumer prices, and an erosion of trust in the courts themselves. Understanding how this problem developed, who it impacts, and what can be done about it is essential for anyone concerned about the future of fair litigation in the United States.
According to recent analyses, the effects of legal system abuse have contributed to what the insurance industry calls “social inflation”—the tendency for liability claim costs to rise faster than general economic inflation. This trend represents a significant challenge for insurers, businesses, and ultimately consumers, who bear the downstream costs of an increasingly litigious environment.
“Legal system abuse occurs when lawsuits and the legal process are manipulated to extract settlements far beyond what is reasonable compensation for actual damages,” said experts at Munich Re US, a leader in reinsurance and risk analysis. “The consequences extend far beyond the courtroom, ultimately impacting everyday Americans through higher prices and reduced access to goods and services.”
The Origins and Growth of Legal System Abuse
Legal system abuse did not emerge overnight. Rather, it evolved over decades as various actors discovered ways to exploit the civil justice system for financial gain beyond legitimate compensation for injuries or damages.
One of the most significant drivers has been the rise of third-party litigation funding, also known as TPLF. This practice involves outside investors — hedge funds, private equity firms, or specialized litigation finance companies — providing capital to plaintiffs and their attorneys in exchange for a portion of any eventual settlement or verdict. What began as a niche practice has grown into a multi-billion-dollar global industry.
The influx of investment capital has transformed the litigation landscape. With deep-pocketed backers willing to fund prolonged legal battles, plaintiffs’ attorneys can afford to reject reasonable settlement offers and pursue “nuclear verdicts” — jury awards in excess of $10 million that have become increasingly common. These verdicts have risen dramatically in both frequency and size over the past two decades.
“Third-party litigation funding has fundamentally changed the economics of lawsuits,” Munich Re US analysts have noted. “When investors expect significant returns on their litigation investments, there is a built-in incentive to push for larger awards rather than fair and reasonable settlements.”
The problem is compounded by a lack of transparency. In most jurisdictions, there is no requirement to disclose whether a lawsuit is being funded by outside investors, leaving defendants, judges, and juries unaware of the financial interests at play. This opacity can distort the justice-seeking process and obscure potential conflicts of interest.
Legal system abuse has also been fueled by aggressive advertising practices by plaintiffs’ attorneys, the proliferation of lawsuit lending companies that provide cash advances to plaintiffs, and sophisticated jury manipulation tactics designed to maximize emotional responses rather than focus on factual evidence of damages.
The Costs to Consumers and Employers
While legal system abuse may seem like an abstract problem affecting only insurers and large corporations, the reality is that its costs flow directly to ordinary Americans in multiple ways.
For consumers, the most immediate impact comes in the form of higher prices. When businesses face increased liability exposure and insurance costs, those expenses are passed along through the goods and services people purchase every day. The American Tort Reform Association has estimated that the tort system costs the average American family of four $6,664 annually in the form of a hidden “tort tax” embedded in prices.
Insurance premiums represent another direct cost. Whether for auto insurance, homeowners coverage, or medical malpractice protection, policyholders pay higher rates when insurers must account for inflated settlement and verdict amounts. In some regions and industries, liability insurance has become difficult or impossible to obtain at any price, creating coverage gaps that leave both businesses and consumers exposed.
“Every excessive verdict, every inflated settlement driven by litigation funding rather than actual damages, ultimately gets paid for by everyone,” Munich Re US has observed. “The money has to come from somewhere—it comes from higher insurance premiums, increased prices, and reduced economic opportunity.”
For employers, the impacts are equally significant. Businesses facing increased liability exposure may reduce hiring, cut employee benefits, or avoid offering certain products or services altogether. Small businesses, which lack the resources to mount prolonged legal defenses, are particularly vulnerable and may be forced to settle meritless claims simply to avoid bankruptcy.
Communities also suffer when local governments and school districts face mounting liability costs. Resources that could fund education, infrastructure, or public services instead flow to litigation expenses and inflated settlements.
Reform Measures to Address Legal System Abuse
Addressing legal system abuse will require action on multiple fronts, from legislative reform to increased transparency requirements to public education about the true costs of lawsuit exploitation.
Transparency in litigation funding represents a critical first step. Requiring disclosure of third-party funding arrangements would allow judges and juries to understand the financial interests behind lawsuits and make more informed decisions. Several states have begun implementing such requirements, and momentum is building for broader adoption.
Caps on non-economic damages, which have proven effective in states that have implemented them, can help prevent runaway verdicts while still ensuring fair compensation for actual injuries. Reforms to venue rules can prevent plaintiffs’ attorneys from “forum shopping”—filing cases in jurisdictions known for plaintiff-friendly juries regardless of where the alleged harm occurred.
Addressing deceptive legal advertising practices and regulating lawsuit lending companies are additional measures that can help restore balance to the civil justice system. Public education efforts that help potential jurors understand the broader economic consequences of excessive verdicts may also contribute to more measured decision-making.
“Reform is not about denying access to justice for those who have been genuinely harmed,” Munich Re US experts have emphasized. “It is about ensuring that the civil justice system serves its intended purpose of providing fair compensation rather than functioning as an investment vehicle for third parties seeking outsized returns.”
The insurance industry, including reinsurers like Munich Re US, have been at the forefront of quantifying the impacts of legal system abuse and advocating for reforms that balance the rights of injured parties with the need for a sustainable and fair legal system.
Looking ahead, the trajectory of legal system abuse will depend largely on whether stakeholders — including legislators, regulators, businesses, insurers, and consumers — recognize the shared interest in reform. For those ready to understand and address these challenges, the path forward requires education, engagement, and a commitment to a civil justice system that serves all Americans fairly. &
