Северная Каролина стала первым штатом США, запретившим финансирование судебных исков сторонними инвесторами

Michael Carey, senior audit manager at RH CPAs, on what House Bill 315 means for insurers and the captives carrying long-tail risk, as North Carolina becomes the first US state to ban third-party litigation investment. The insurance industry has spent much of the last decade grappling with the effects of social inflation, the trend of increasing claims severity driven not by underlying economic inflation, but by larger jury verdicts, expanded theories of liability, and prolonged litigation. One of the major contributors to this phenomenon has been the rapid growth of third-party litigation funding, a multibillion-dollar industry in which outside investors finance lawsuits in exchange for a percentage of settlements or judgments. With the enactment of House Bill 315 (HB 315), the Prohibit Litigation Investments Act, North Carolina has become the first US state to prohibit third-party litigation investment in civil proceedings. Signed into law by Governor Josh Stein on 22 June 2026, the legislation represents a landmark policy decision and may ultimately serve as a model for other jurisdictions seeking to address rising litigation costs and their downstream impact on consumers and businesses alike. What the law does The law makes it unlawful to engage in litigation investment in the state, or to furnish it to a party or counsel of record in a civil proceeding. Litigation investment is defined as the provision of money for the fees, costs and expenses of a pending or potential civil proceeding in exchange for a right to repayment or other consideration contingent on the outcome. The statute carries penalties of up to US$50,000 per violation, enforceable by the state attorney general, and voids any contract that breaches it. A person injured by a violation may bring an action to recover damages, electing at judgment between common law damages and statutory damages set at treble the full potential litigation investment contemplated by the investor. For insurers, the law carves out an insurer's, or other entity's, contractual obligation to indemnify or defend a party to a civil proceeding, which falls outside the definition of litigation investment. Further exclusions cover contingency-fee legal services, an attorney or law firm advancing costs, non-profit and pro bono funding, and a direct loan whose repayment is not contingent on the outcome of a proceeding. The case for consumers For consumers, the benefits are straightforward. Litigation funding introduces an additional financial stakeholder whose interests are tied not to achieving a fair and timely resolution, but to maximising investment returns. This can create incentives to prolong litigation, reject reasonable settlement offers, and increase legal costs. Those costs ultimately find their way back to consumers through higher insurance premiums, increased product prices, and greater economic uncertainty. By removing outside investment capital from civil litigation, North Carolina has taken a meaningful step towards reducing these inflationary pressures and preserving affordability for policyholders and businesses. A more predictable claims environment Traditional insurance companies also stand to benefit from a more predictable claims environment. Property and casualty insurers have experienced significant increases in loss severity across numerous lines of business, including commercial auto, general liability, medical malpractice, directors and officers liability, and product liability coverage. The growth of litigation financing has frequently been cited as a contributing factor to the rise in so-called 'nuclear verdicts' and extended claim settlement periods. A legal environment less influenced by investment-driven litigation should improve claims predictability, reserve adequacy, and underwriting stability. Leon Rives, chief visionary officer at RH CPAs, says: "As someone who works closely with the insurance industry, I view North Carolina's enactment of House Bill 315 as a significant development for the state's legal and risk environment. By becoming the first state in the nation to prohibit third-party litigation investment, North Carolina has taken a bold step to reduce the financialisation of lawsuits and the inflationary pressures that prolonged and investor-driven litigation can place on claim costs and loss severity." Implications for captives The implications for captive insurance companies may be even more significant. Captives are often formed to insure low-frequency, high-severity risks that are particularly susceptible to social inflation and adverse claims development. Large liability verdicts can create volatility in captive financial results, increase required capital levels, and reduce underwriting capacity for parent organisations. By reducing incentives for speculative litigation and helping contain claims severity, HB 315 has the potential to improve loss experience across captive programmes. This could result in more stable pricing, reduced reserve volatility, and greater confidence in long-term risk financing strategies. For middle-market and large commercial organisations utilising captives as part of their enterprise risk management programmes, predictability remains one of the most valuable commodities in insurance. Rives adds: "For insurers, reinsurers, captive insurance companies, and businesses that ultimately bear the cost of social inflation through higher premiums and reserves, this legislation may help preserve a more predictable and sustainable claims environment. It will be interesting to see whether other jurisdictions follow North Carolina's lead." Preserving legitimate claims Importantly, HB 315 does not eliminate contingency-fee arrangements or interfere with an insurer's contractual duty to defend or indemnify policyholders. Legitimate claimants retain access to the civil justice system and legal representation, while the legislation targets the growing commercialisation of litigation by non-party investors whose primary interest is financial return rather than justice or compensation. Tort reform measures elsewhere point to the potential upside. In Florida, for example, some of the reforms the state has implemented have increased consumer access to affordable insurance. Beyond the funding ban HB 315 also amends the state workers' compensation act. It raises the maximum award for serious facial or head disfigurement from US$20,000 to US$40,000, doubles the maximum for serious bodily disfigurement from US$10,000 to US$20,000, and raises the maximum for loss of or injury to an important organ or body part from US$20,000 to US$40,000. Those provisions take effect on 1 July 2027 and apply to claims arising on or after that date. The litigation investment prohibition took effect on enactment, 22 June 2026, and applies to civil proceedings commenced on or after that date, and to contracts entered into, renewed or amended on or after that date. A model for other states North Carolina's decision is both bold and innovative. North Carolina is the first state to enact a comprehensive prohibition on third-party litigation investment, positioning it at the forefront of efforts to address social inflation and its impact on the insurance marketplace. Whether other states follow North Carolina's lead remains to be seen. However, for consumers seeking affordable coverage, insurers striving for underwriting stability, and captive insurance companies managing long-tail liability exposures, HB 315 represents a significant and positive development for the future of risk financing in the US.