In a recent analysis, Robert Hartwig criticized insurers for offering judgment preservation insurance (JPI) while condemning third-party litigation funding (TPLF), which fuels large jury verdicts. JPI protects against appellate reversals, often backed by the same TPLF firms blamed for driving “nuclear verdicts.” Hartwig sees this as “cognitive dissonance,” questioning why insurers would support a product counter to their interests. He argues that insurers’ involvement with TPLF firms weakens their stance on tort reform. “It’s the equivalent of the banking industry offering a product financing ‘getaway’ cars in a bank robbery,” Hartwig remarked. The relationship between insurers and TPLF firms, despite their public criticism, suggests an ongoing “love-hate relationship,” where financial incentives keep the collaboration intact despite ideological differences. Read more from the article by clicking here.