iFraud Deep Dive
Welcome to iFraud Deep Dive, an official podcast series of the iFraud Foundation — where we tackle the toughest issues facing the property and casualty industry in the fight against fraud.
Each episode features in-depth conversations breaking down complex issues into easily consumable information that we can all understand. We explore the fraud landscape, expose emerging threats, and highlight actionable solutions. From staged accidents and collusive networks to litigation abuse and regulatory gaps, we go beyond the headlines to bring you the insights that matter.
Whether you’re a carrier, broker, employer, attorney, or regulator, if you’re committed to protecting the integrity of our industry then this podcast is for you.
Subscribe now and join us in building a smarter, stronger, fraud-resilient future.
iFraud Deep Dive
S1 E55 Funding Lawsuits Transparency Disclosure Fight
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
We take a Deep Dive into Third Party Litigation Funding based on a formal letter sent to New York Governor Kathy Hochul urging crucial amendments to the proposed Consumer Litigation Funding Act (S.1104A / A.804C). A broad coalition of organizations representing business, housing, and industry sectors including the iFraud Foundation, insists that the legislation must be modified to mandate the disclosure of third-party litigation funding (TPLF) agreements to both judges and opposing parties. The coalition argues that TPLF currently operates without transparency, contributing to prolonged and costly legal disputes—termed "zombie litigation"—which ultimately drives up insurance costs. Furthermore, the letter explicitly claims that these undisclosed financial arrangements are connected to a "sprawling ecosystem" undergirding fraudulent civil litigation schemes involving organized crime and the staging of accidents.
The organizations stress that transparency is essential for the court to expose potential fraud and enforce the bill’s consumer protection measures. They conclude that passing the legislation without mandatory disclosure would undermine judicial integrity and leave consumers unprotected from the excesses of the secretive lawsuit-funding industry.