Industry providing cash advances for lawsuit payoffs fights bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The director of a group of financing companies warned Wednesday that lawmakers "would eliminate this industry from Indiana" should they approve a measure targeting companies that provide cash advances — sometimes at sky-high rates of return — to people awaiting payoffs in personal injury lawsuits.

The bill sponsored by state Rep. Matt Lehman, passed the Indiana House last week on a 57-39 vote and is now before the Senate. Its key provision would cap at 38 percent the rate of return companies providing such funding to people could claim in Indiana.

Lehman, R-Berne, said he became concerned about what's often called litigation financing after hearing about cases of companies that obtained returns of up to 200 percent from people who received money for them, typically to help them make home or auto payments or foot living expenses.

He said companies providing this type of financing, usually in cases involving auto accidents, falls or product liability, need some level of regulation to prevent potential abuses.

"It really kind of came down to this, everyone agrees — everyone — that someone needs to monitor them because they've kind of been out there doing their own thing, whenever they want, however they want," Lehman said. "They have no one to report to because they're not regulated by any entity."

His measure would also create a regulatory mechanism within the state Department of Insurance that would include standardized contracts clearly disclosing the terms of the financing and fees for the financing.

The American Legal Finance Association strongly opposes the bill, particularly its 38-percent cap, said Kelly Gilroy, executive director of the New York-based group that has 38 member companies that provide such funding.

"As it is currently drafted, it would eliminate this industry from Indiana," she said Wednesday.

Gilroy stresses that the financing her group's member companies provide are not consumer loans. She said the contracts people sign are quite different from loans because there's no guarantee the company will be paid back, customers don't have to put up collateral and, if they can't pay back the money, their credit won't suffer.

Gilroy said $4,000 is the average amount of money members of her association provide for lawsuit financing.

"There's a huge risk to the companies and there's no recourse for them at the end," she said. "The companies get paid out of the proceeds of the case. If there are no proceeds, or not sufficient proceeds, then the company does not get paid back."

Sometimes, the companies are able to negotiate a smaller repayment amount if the judgment in a case is smaller than had been expected, she said.

State Sen. Travis Holdman, a Markle Republican who's sponsoring the bill in the Senate, said he expects the chamber to have a lively and intelligent discussion of the legislation in the weeks ahead.

Holdman and Lehman are members of the executive committee of the National Conference of Insurance Legislators. Holdman said they've both heard from many people that so-called litigation financing needs regulation, including caps on rates of return.

More than a dozen states, including Kentucky, Ohio and New York, are exploring proposals to regulate lawsuit financing, he said.

"I'd really like to see us end up with a cap and get something out this session. We just need to make sure we have some oversight on this to make sure there's no abuse going on in the state," he said.

Holdman said he'll know early next week whether the bill will be assigned to the Senate's financial institutions committee, which he chairs, or the chamber's insurance committee.


  • Insurance companies are scared
    This is all about the insurance companies wanting to keep settlements low. If there is no lawsuit funding, the poor have no choice but to settle their cases for ridiculously small amounts as they have no assets to fall back on. All the funding does is allow the plaintiff to survive until there is a fair settlement. While the interest is unquestionably high, the plaintiff does not need to borrow, the amount actually borrowed is usually very low and the funding company is only paid back if the plaintiff wins. Often cases that would only settle for a few thousand dollars result in hundreds of thousands of dollars to the plaintiffs. So understand, this law is not to protect the plaintiff from paying high interest, it is to protect insurance companies from paying out fair settlements.
  • Interest vs Funding Fee
    Currently, repayment of the "lawsuit funding" does not fall under the usuary laws because the repayment is classified as a "funding fee". Typically, complete repayment only occurs if (a) "borrower" receives a judgement or settlement and(b) the amount is large enough, after attorney fees. It is an interesting issue and dilemma, and not as cut and dry as it would appear at first glance. Should the "lawsuit funding" be considered a loan and, therefore, the repayment interest? A person needing the funds in many situations is not going to get anyone to "lend" them the money, especially if they are unable to work. But bills are still owed. There is little to no options by the "borrower" on where to go and to negotiate terms, if that is even possible. On the other had, the lawsuit financier has a lot at risk in the transaction because there is no assurance of success in the underlying lawsuit. There is no "collateral" either. The amount repaid does seems unconscionable, but it is a highly risky need being fulfilled.
  • Usuary
    Don't we call lending money at those rates USUARY?, And why would we want them to prey on our citizens. Thank you legislature.

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. The east side does have potential...and I have always thought Washington Scare should become an outlet mall. Anyone remember how popular Eastgate was? Well, Indy has no outlet malls, we have to go to Edinburgh for the deep discounts and I don't understand why. Jim is right. We need a few good eastsiders interested in actually making some noise and trying to change the commerce, culture and stereotypes of the East side. Irvington is very progressive and making great strides, why can't the far east side ride on their coat tails to make some changes?

    2. Boston.com has an article from 2010 where they talk about how Interactions moved to Massachusetts in the year prior. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2010/07/interactions_banks_63_million.html The article includes a link back to that Inside Indiana Business press release I linked to earlier, snarkily noting, "Guess this 2006 plan to create 200-plus new jobs in Indiana didn't exactly work out."

    3. I live on the east side and I have read all your comments. a local paper just did an article on Washington square mall with just as many comments and concerns. I am not sure if they are still around, but there was an east side coalition with good intentions to do good things on the east side. And there is a facebook post that called my eastside indy with many old members of the eastside who voice concerns about the east side of the city. We need to come together and not just complain and moan, but come up with actual concrete solutions, because what Dal said is very very true- the eastside could be a goldmine in the right hands. But if anyone is going damn, and change things, it is us eastside residents

    4. Please go back re-read your economics text book and the fine print on the February 2014 CBO report. A minimum wage increase has never resulted in a net job loss...

    5. The GOP at the Statehouse is more interested in PR to keep their majority, than using it to get anything good actually done. The State continues its downward spiral.