Chubb vs Burford: Market Power Abuse Claim
Burford Capital‘s CEO launches a serious claim: Chubb, a major U.S. insurer, is abusing its market power. This dispute intensifies as Chubb threatens to cut ties with anyone in the litigation funding space. Chris Bogart, Burford’s chief executive, alleges Chubb’s actions are an “inappropriate use of corporate power,” raising anti-competitive concerns. The primary_keyword issue here is the rise of litigation funding facing insurer backlash, while the secondary_keyword is the potential for market dominance interference. News Directory 3 might soon have more on this developing story. Will other insurers follow Chubb’s lead? Discover what’s next in this escalating battle.
Burford Capital Accuses Chubb of Market Power Abuse Over Litigation Funding
Updated May 27, 2025
Burford Capital is accusing Chubb, a U.S. insurer, of abusing its market power. This stems from Chubb’s threat to cut off lawyers, bankers, and asset managers who collaborate with litigation funders. Chris Bogart, Burford Capital’s chief executive, contends that Chubb’s stance is an ”inappropriate use of corporate power” and potentially anti-competitive.
Evan Greenberg, Chubb’s head, reportedly urged insurers and brokers to distance themselves from the litigation funding industry at a Chicago trade conference this month. Greenberg argues that litigation funding drives up lawsuit costs. Chubb has not commented on the matter.
The litigation funding sector has seen rapid growth.Firms like Burford support lawsuits globally, including cases against major companies. However,insurers like Chubb have pushed back,claiming these arrangements fuel excessive litigation.
Bogart disputes Greenberg’s position. He suggests that the insurance industry collectively denying access to a legal market raises anti-competitive concerns.
“My disagreement with Evan [Greenberg] is that I think it’s inappropriate to take the market power that large insurers have and try to use it to deny access,” Bogart said.
Greenberg has criticized litigation funders for turning jury awards into an asset class, leading to a proliferation of cases based on “clever theories designed to find fault where it simply doesn’t exist.”
Aon,a major broker,stopped offering insurance cover for litigation funders last year,but declined to comment on its reasoning.
While insurers often clash with litigation funders, some also offer specialized products for the sector. Assets in insurance “wrappers,” covering losses on legal investments, have grown significantly. Fortress Investment Group, backed by Mubadala, has even lent against litigation funding portfolios with these wrappers.
However,rising litigation payouts are concerning insurers. Record-high average damages in U.S.trials, partly due to ”nuclear verdicts” against tech companies, have contributed to this worry.
Swiss Re issued a profit warning last year, allocating billions for lawsuit claims. CEO Andreas Berger supports efforts to address legal system abuse.
“I’m applauding Evan Greenberg,” Berger said, adding, ”I welcome any constructive effort to address the abuse of the legal system.”
Bogart remains optimistic about the litigation sector’s future, despite Greenberg’s opposition.
What’s next
The conflict between Chubb and Burford Capital highlights the ongoing debate about the role and impact of litigation funding. The industry will be watching to see if othre insurers follow Chubb’s lead and how this impacts the availability of funding for lawsuits.