Non-Recourse Funding

Lawsuit Loans: The Definitive Non-Recourse Pre-Settlement Funding Guide For Plaintiffs

Learn what lawsuit loans are, how non‑recourse funding can help you, who qualifies, and how the approval process works. Explore case types, benefits, and more to make the most informed decision with confidence.

Introduction To Lawsuit Loans
What Lawsuit Loans Are & Are Not
- Lawsuit Loans Are a Lifeline
Lawsuit Loan Approval Process
ABA Weighs In on Litigation Funding
What Is Non-Recourse Funding?
Why Legal Funding Was Created
How Do Lawsuit Loans Work?
What Types of Cases Are Eligible?
What Types of Cases Are Ineligible?
Who Qualifies For a Lawsuit Loan?
How Much Funding Can You Get?
- How Is Case Value Determined?
- How Is the Approval Amount Determined?
Can You Get More Than One Pre-Settlement Loan?
Can You Get Funding If You Already Borrowed From Another Company?
Why Call It a Lawsuit Loan If It’s Not?
Costs, Fees, and Rates
Lawsuit Loans: Pre-Settlement Cash Advances for Plaintiffs
Lawsuit Loans vs. Traditional Loans
How Can You Use a Lawsuit Loan?
Will a Lawsuit Loan Affect Your Case?
Is Attorney Cooperation Mandatory?
Legal Funding Laws: State-by-State
Do Lawsuit Loans Have To Be Disclosed?
Ethical Considerations
State Bar Opinions on Legal Funding
Benefits of Risk-Free Lawsuit Loans
How Funding Companies Assess Risk
How to Choose a Lawsuit Loan Company
Alternatives to Lawsuit Loans
Frequently Asked Questions
Internal Linking Hub
Final Summary
Get a Lawsuit Loan Now

Introduction to Lawsuit Loans Man Thumbs Up

A Practical Introduction To Non-Recourse Lawsuit Loans

Lawsuit loans—often referred to as legal funding or settlement loans—are an innovative, highly specialized financial service that gives injured plaintiffs early access to a portion of their future settlement proceeds before their case is resolved.

Lawsuit loans exist for one reason: to provide injured plaintiffs with immediate financial stability in the middle of long, unpredictable, and often overwhelming legal battles.

Unlike traditional bank loans or consumer financing, lawsuit funding is not credit‑based. In other words, credit scores, credit history, employment status, income levels, real estate collateral, cosigners, and the ability to make monthly payments—every barrier that typically stands between a borrower and approval—is irrelevant here.

None of it matters. None of it is evaluated. None of it can disqualify a plaintiff.

And beyond eliminating every credit‑based obstacle, lawsuit loans carry one defining feature that makes them uniquely powerful and uniquely protective for risk‑averse plaintiffs:

Lawsuit Loans Are No Win/No Pay

Lawsuit loans from TriMark Legal Funding are zero‑risk to plaintiffs. That is not marketing hype; it is the legal, factual, and structural reality of non‑recourse funding.

Here’s what zero‑risk actually means:

Qualification & Approval: Approval is based almost entirely on the strength, liability, and projected value of the case—not the plaintiff’s credit score. There is no risk of denial due to bad credit or past financial hardship.
Repayment: Repayment occurs only if the case is resolved successfully. If the plaintiff loses, they owe nothing. No repayment. No debt. No personal liability. No exceptions. No kidding.
- This is the core advantage of non‑recourse funding: plaintiffs can access the funds they need without taking on any personal financial risk.

Purpose of This Guide

This guide delivers an insider‑level, deeply informed exploration of lawsuit loans: what they are, how they work, who qualifies, which types of cases are eligible, how funding companies evaluate risk, and why non‑recourse legal funding was created in the first place. It also dismantles common myths, clarifies widespread misconceptions, and answers the questions plaintiffs and attorneys ask most often.

TriMark Legal Funding conceived, designed, and compiled this guide to serve as the definitive resource—the legal funding industry’s most complete, comprehensive, and authoritative compendium on litigation funding. It is the “go‑to” reference for plaintiffs, attorneys, and anyone seeking clarity in a space that is often misunderstood.

This updated edition represents the culmination of 23 years of frontline, industry‑leading experience. It is built on accuracy, integrity, transparency, and a commitment to giving plaintiffs the information they need to make confident, informed decisions.

What Lawsuit Loans Are — And Are Not

For clarity and transparency: Terms like “lawsuit loans,” “settlement loans,” and “pre‑settlement loans” are widely used search phrases, but they are not technically accurate, and are not actual loans in the traditional sense. They are non‑recourse lawsuit cash advances—a completely different financial structure with none of the obligations, liabilities, or risks associated with credit‑based lending.

We use these and other terms throughout our website because real people use them, and search engines like Google, Bing, and Yahoo understand that when someone searches for “lawsuit loan” or “pre-settlement loan”, they are actually looking for companies that provide non‑recourse funding to injured plaintiffs. Using real‑world search language ensures that the people who need help can find it.

Why call it a loan if it isn’t one?

Search behavior. People use thousands of variations—“settlement loan,” “lawsuit loan,” “pre‑settlement loan,” and more—to find the services TriMark provides. To remain visible, relevant, and accessible to those who need us in search results, Google requires that our content reflect the language plaintiffs actually use.

The more technically accurate term is non‑recourse lawsuit cash advance, because these advances bear no resemblance to any credit‑based loan product offered by banks or traditional lenders. They are purpose‑built for litigation, structured to protect plaintiffs, and designed to eliminate personal financial risk entirely.

Lawsuit Loans Are A Lifeline

Lawsuit loans are a highly specialized form of financial support—engineered to combat one of the most punishing realities an injured plaintiff can face: trying to survive financially, undergo medical treatment, recover from their injuries, and keep their lives from falling apart, all while the civil justice system moves at its own slow, indifferent pace.

A lawsuit loan isn’t like a traditional loan, and it isn’t even accessible to the general public. It exists for a single, unambiguous purpose: to give plaintiffs—only plaintiffs—a financial lifeline amidst the chaos, turmoil, and quiet desperation that follows a serious injury.

Defendants can only dream of this type of funding, but they will never be able to get it.

And even among plaintiffs, eligibility is intentionally narrow. Only those involved in specific qualifying personal injury or civil cases can receive it, because lawsuit loans are tied directly to the strength, validity, and projected value of the underlying legal claim. It is a targeted tool for a targeted problem.

Most injured plaintiffs need support—real, immediate, stabilizing support—because civil litigation moves at a pace that feels glacial when your life has been upended.

Insurance companies hold nearly all the leverage, and they use it with surgical precision. They dictate the tempo of negotiations and slow them to a crawl the moment progress threatens their bottom line.

They control the money the plaintiff needs to regain stability, restore financial control, and eventually rebuild their life after the case is resolved. That imbalance isn’t theoretical; it’s engineered, reinforced, and intentionally exploited. It shapes every delay, every negotiation, and every tactic deployed against an already vulnerable plaintiff.

Insurance adjusters have time, resources, and institutional backing. They can afford to wait. Plaintiffs cannot. While insurers sit on the money, injured plaintiffs face a daily, grinding reality: overdue bills, lost wages, medical debt that compounds month after month, and the emotional weight of trying to hold everything together. Without meaningful financial relief, the longer a plaintiff waits for a fair settlement, the deeper the financial hole becomes—and the more pressure they feel to accept a low offer simply to survive.

Serious personal injury cases routinely take 12 to 36 months to litigate or resolve. During that time, plaintiffs may be unable to work, may require ongoing medical treatment, and often encounter long, unexplained delays from insurance carriers. Meanwhile, life does not pause. Rent still comes due. Utilities still need to be paid. Groceries, transportation, childcare—every essential expense continues, relentlessly, without regard for the plaintiff’s injuries or the pace of their case.

This is the exact environment lawsuit loans were built for: not to replace a settlement or influence case management or strategy, but to give injured plaintiffs the breathing room they need to stand their ground, regain control of their finances, protect their dignity, and pursue the full value of their claim without being financially crushed into submission in the process.

A lawsuit advance from TriMark Legal Funding extends that breathing room into something tangible: fast access to a portion of a plaintiff’s anticipated future settlement while their case is still pending. It can help stabilize a plaintiff’s financial situation during litigation, allowing them to continue medical treatment, maintain basic living standards, and resist the pressure to accept an undervalued settlement simply because they need money now.

Lawsuit loans are structured as non recourse funding, meaning repayment is made only from the case proceeds and only if the plaintiff obtains a recovery. If the case does not settle or the plaintiff does not win, the plaintiff owes nothing. No personal liability. No wage garnishment. No credit damage. No collections. The risk stays entirely on the funding company—never on the injured plaintiff.

This non recourse structure is what allows plaintiffs to access funds without taking on any personal financial risk. It is the defining feature that separates lawsuit funding from every traditional loan product on the market.

Lawsuit loans help injured plaintiffs maintain financial stability during one of the most challenging periods of their lives. By offering access to a portion of the anticipated settlement while the case is still pending, lawsuit loans help plaintiffs maintain essential living standards, continue medical treatment, and avoid being forced into premature or undervalued settlements due to financial pressure.

Because approval is based solely on the legal merits of the case—not credit, not employment, not income—lawsuit loans function as a litigation-specific financial tool designed to support plaintiffs, not burden them.

Understanding how lawsuit loans work, what factors matter during underwriting, and why certain background issues can affect eligibility provides a clear foundation for evaluating whether pre settlement funding is appropriate for a particular situation. With this foundation in place, plaintiffs and attorneys can make informed, strategic decisions about whether lawsuit funding aligns with the needs of the case and the plaintiff’s financial circumstances.

Pre-Settlement Lawsuit Funding Is A 3-Step Process

Whether you’re interested in pre-settlement loans or post-settlement loans, our review and approval process works the same way.

After you apply online, we’ll work with your attorney to quickly evaluate your case and injuries. Once approved, funds are wired directly to your bank account so they’re available for immediate use.

Apply For Pre Settlement Funding: Step 1 — Click here to apply now. It’s quick, easy, and free to apply, and only takes a minute.

Apply For Pre Settlement Funding: Step 2 — We’ll work directly with your attorney to quickly evaluate your case and injuries.

Apply For Pre Settlement Funding: Step 3 — After approval is complete, funds are wired directly into your bank account.

Lawsuit Loan Approval Process: What Matters

Every lawsuit loan application undergoes a structured evaluation process known as underwriting. The purpose of underwriting is to determine whether the legal claim has sufficient merit, value, and recovery potential to justify advancing funds while the case is still unresolved.

Because the repayment of lawsuit loans is inextricably tied to the outcome of the case, the underwriting process focuses almost exclusively on the theory of liability, injuries and treatment, total available insurance coverage, and the likely gross settlement value of the case.

Factors That Matter

In civil law, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof and must establish their case by presenting sufficient evidence.

The standard of evidence in civil cases is the “preponderance of the evidence”. That means your lawyer must prove that your claims are “more likely valid than not”.

According to the Legal Information Institute, 51% certainty is the threshold for meeting the preponderance of the evidence standard in most civil cases.

Key elements evaluated during underwriting:

Liability strength
How clear is the defendant’s negligence, and does the plaintiff have sufficient evidence to prove it?
Degree of negligence
The extent to which the defendant’s negligent conduct caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Additionally, was there any degree of negligence on the plaintiff’s part?
Injury severity and permanence
The nature, extent, and long-term impact of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Medical treatment history
Diagnostic findings, treatment received, surgeries performed, and anticipated future care.
Prognosis and recovery trajectory
Whether the plaintiff is expected to recover fully or suffer lasting impairment.
Impact on earning capacity
Whether the plaintiff can return to work and at what level.
Applicable negligence laws
How state-specific contributory or comparative negligence rules affect potential recovery.
Available insurance coverage
Policy limits and the defendant’s ability to satisfy a settlement or judgment.

Factors That Don’t Matter

Because pre-settlement funding approval is based almost entirely on the strengths and merits of a plaintiff’s legal claim rather than the plaintiff’s personal financial circumstances, traditional lending criteria no longer apply.

Underwriting does not consider:

Credit score: good or bad; it doesn’t matter
Credit history: late pays, charge-offs, foreclosure, repo
Current income: stable or consistent income history
Employment status: stable or employment history
Debt-to-income ratio
Capacity to make regular monthly payments

These are irrelevant because the strength and value of the legal claim are what ensure repayment, not your personal assets or income.

Uncommon, But They Matter

Depending on the type and amount of funding requested, several credit- or background-check-related items could trigger a denial.

While uncommon, plaintiffs with certain legal issues can present an unacceptable level of risk exposure to a lawsuit loan company by preventing or interfering with its ability to be repaid after a case is resolved successfully.

Financial Fraud / Identity Fraud
An arrest or conviction heightens concerns about a lack of honesty and trustworthiness, as well as the potential for financial loss from intentional misrepresentation.
Open Bankruptcy Filing
Lawsuit loans may be added to, or absorbed into, an active bankruptcy, thereby preventing repayment.
Open Child Support Liens
In family law, court-ordered child support obligations can take priority over funding liens and can intercept settlement proceeds.

Lawsuit Loans and Financing Lady Justice

ABA Weighs In on Litigation Funding

The American Bar Association (ABA) is the largest voluntary association of lawyers and legal professionals in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA plays a pivotal role in shaping ethical guidance and professional standards across the legal industry.

In 2020, the ABA examined litigation finance in depth and published its findings in the Best Practices for Third-Party Litigation Funding (“Best Practices”). The report was created to assist lawyers in evaluating funding arrangements and outlines key considerations designed to preserve client control, protect attorney autonomy, and ensure that funding agreements are structured responsibly.

The Best Practices “Ripple Effect”

Despite the ABA clearly noting that “These Best Practices should not be read as recommended standards of professional conduct or as a basis for attorney discipline,” all reputable legal funding companies — including TriMark Legal Funding — nonetheless adopted these principles into their standard business operations and use them as guidance when structuring funding agreements.

ABA clearly emphasized:

“Direct funding to a litigant for living expenses may be structured as a loan or as an investment…”
“The frequency of funding, the diversity of types of funding, and the number of funders have increased.”
“The number of funded cases has increased significantly.”
“The litigation funding arrangement should assure that the client remains in control of the case.”
“The funder has no right to control litigation strategy or settlement decisions.”

What ABA Said — and Didn’t Say — About Lawsuit Loans

In its Best Practices report, the American Bar Association acknowledges that litigation funding is a growing and widely used part of the civil justice landscape, and that the market has expanded significantly in size, diversity, and participation.

At the same time, the ABA neither endorses nor opposes litigation funding, nor does it attempt to characterize its impact on the legal system. Instead, the report focuses on delivering practical guidance to help lawyers evaluate funding arrangements responsibly.

Together, these statements reflect the ABA’s recognition that litigation funding has become an established and expanding component of modern litigation.

The ABA’s guidance reinforces the core principles that define responsible funding practices: client control, attorney autonomy, transparent documentation, and carefully structured agreements.

For plaintiffs and attorneys alike, the ABA’s Best Practices provide a clear framework for evaluating funding options within the bounds of ethical and professional responsibility.

What Is Non-Recourse Funding?

Non‑recourse funding is often described as “the flip‑side of traditional bank lending,” and taken literally, that’s not far from the truth. Beyond the superficial similarity that both involve a borrower, a lender, and money, non‑recourse funding bears almost no resemblance to full‑recourse lending. Structurally, legally, and practically, they operate in entirely different universes.

The fastest way to understand non‑recourse funding is to compare it directly to full‑recourse funding. When compared side‑by‑side, and feature-by-feature, the contrast is so stark that they start to feel like examining polar opposites.

Key Takeaways

Full-recourse funding: Full repayment, no exceptions. If the borrower defaults, the lender may garnish wages, seize pledged collateral, and take other assets, including bank & investment accounts, real estate, vehicles, and more.
Non-recourse funding: Repayment is outcome‑contingent. The lender is repaid only from settlement proceeds, and only after the case is resolved. If the case is lost, the plaintiff owes nothing.

Full-Recourse Lending

Most adults in America are familiar with full‑recourse lending, even if they’ve never heard the term. They know it by its everyday names: home loan, car loan, consumer loan, boat loan, installment loan, truck loan, secured loan, motorcycle loan, signature loan. Same book, different covers.

Full‑recourse lending is any secured personal loan that gives the lender the legal right, in the event of default, to claim not only the collateral pledged for the loan, but also any other assets the borrower owns.

This includes real estate, houses, buildings, vehicles, property, checking and savings accounts, investment accounts, stocks, bonds, crypto, and even future wages. Lenders can even intercept state and federal tax refunds and your personal injury lawsuit settlement. The bottom line is that if anything the borrower in default owns has value, it’s on the chopping block.

And to get that loan, borrowers must submit to an invasive qualification process: detailed personal information, financial disclosures, employment verification, income documentation, background check, and a credit check.

Approval hinges on good credit, a long history of on‑time payments, stable employment, reliable income, and the demonstrated ability to make recurring monthly payments for years. Depending on the type and amount of the loan, some lenders may require a down payment, real estate collateral, or a cosigner.

Once the loan is approved, documents are signed, and funds are disbursed, the borrower begins a monthly ritual that will continue for the life of the loan: making payments. Every month. Without fail.

But if life happens—if the borrower pays late, misses a payment, or must stop paying due to a serious accident, injury, illness, job loss, unemployment, or any other hardship—the lender can exercise its full legal recourse to collect every dollar owed, and then some.

Once the collections process begins, the borrower no longer owes just the principal amount borrowed. They are now responsible for interest, penalties, late fees, service fees, legal expenses, court costs, attorney fees, and all litigation and collection costs. If real estate collateral was pledged, it is forfeited. If a cosigner was used, the lender will pursue them simultaneously.

If repayment is not made promptly, the lender will retain legal counsel — at the borrower’s expense — and initiate legal action. After successfully suing the borrower, the borrower owes a judgment debt. The lender will then obtain a court‑ordered judgment and a writ of garnishment.

That writ gives the lender the legal right to garnish wages, levy bank accounts, liquidate investment and brokerage accounts, and intercept tax refunds. They can also levy real estate, seize vehicles, and take any other assets with value. Everything seized will be liquidated (sold for cash) and applied to the judgment debt until every dollar is repaid.

THAT is full-recourse lending in real life.

And the carnage doesn’t stop there. The borrower’s personal and professional reputation may suffer, their credit scores will collapse, and the damage will remain on their credit reports for 7 years after the date the debt is finally repaid.

Non-Recourse Funding Is a Win/Win

We understand that to the uninitiated, that is a pretty bold claim, so consider this:

We’ve already established that lawsuit loans are only for plaintiffs, and only plaintiffs in certain types of civil lawsuits qualify for legal funding. Every civil lawsuit has a beginning, a middle, and an end. And at the end of every civil lawsuit, the plaintiff will either win or lose; there is no third option.

So, the plaintiff receives their lawsuit advance up front, and sooner or later their case ends in one of only two possible ways. The plaintiff either:

Wins their case
When this happens, the legal funding company is repaid from the settlement proceeds, as agreed, and everyone lives happily ever after.
Loses their case
When this happens, the plaintiff keeps the money they received, the legal funding company absorbs the loss, and everyone lives happily ever after.

In both scenarios, the plaintiff got the money they needed, never repaid one dime out of pocket, and was never exposed to any financial risk. That’s a win/win anyway you slice it.

Key Characteristics of Non-Recourse Funding:

Repayment only from case proceeds:
If there is no settlement or verdict, the plaintiff owes nothing.
No personal liability:
The plaintiff’s personal finances, credit, and assets are never at risk.
No monthly payments:
Repayment occurs only at the end of the case, and only if the case is successful.
Case-based underwriting:
Approval depends on provable liability, damages, and available insurance coverage—not credit scores or employment.
Risk of loss is 100% assumed by the funder:
The funding company bears the full risk of loss.

Why Lawsuit Loans Are Considered “Zero-Risk”

Non-recourse funding does not operate like traditional consumer lending. Approval is based entirely on the strength of the legal claim—liability, damages, available insurance coverage, and the likelihood of recovery—not on the plaintiff’s creditworthiness or financial background.

Because repayment is tied exclusively to the outcome of the lawsuit, non-recourse funding carries no personal liability.

Plaintiffs do not make monthly payments, do not pledge personal assets, and do not face collections, wage garnishment, litigation, negative credit reporting, or credit damage if the case is unsuccessful.

100% of the risk is borne by the funding company, which evaluates the case and accepts the possibility of total loss when it funds it.

Why Legal Funding Was Created

Legal funding was created as a response to a structurally imbalanced civil justice system that consistently favored and rewarded abusive insurance company tactics over the injured plaintiffs they were supposed to be helping.

For decades, insurers have been refining a claims-handling strategy often summarized as “Delay, Deny, Defend.” “The 3 D’s”, as it is often called, operates on the belief that the longer a claim can be delayed, the more likely it is that a financially strained plaintiff will either accept a lower-than-full-value offer, or simply give up and get nothing.

This strategy is not theoretical—it is well-documented. Investigations, consumer-rights organizations, and litigation records have repeatedly identified major insurers for chronic delays, undervalued offers, and aggressive bad-faith tactics. Among the companies most frequently cited are Allstate, State Farm, GEICO, Liberty Mutual, Farmers, Progressive, Nationwide, AIG, Travelers, and USAA. These carriers dominate the auto and liability markets, and their claims practices shape the experience of millions of injured people every year.

When someone is injured in a car crash or truck wreck, a slip and fall accident, a workplace accident, or another negligence-based case, their financial reality can change overnight. Income may drop to zero. Medical bills begin immediately. Treatment requires time, travel, and copays. Rent, utilities, childcare, and groceries continue without pause.

Conversely, insurers face no such pressure, as they have deep financial reserves, salaried legal teams, and claims software like Colossus, which was designed from the ground up to favor insurers by denying, delaying, and intentionally underpaying legitimate claims, typically by 12-20%.

Large insurance companies think in years and decades. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, are often forced to think in days and weeks. By minimizing payouts in this way, the insurance industry saves billions of dollars each year.

As insurers perfected delay tactics—slow-walking claims, disputing liability, minimizing injuries, requesting duplicate records, and dragging negotiations out for months or years—plaintiffs found themselves pushed into a financial corner. Many were forced to choose between accepting an unfair settlement or risking eviction, utility shutoffs, homelessness, vehicle repossession, or the inability to continue medical treatment.

Legal funding emerged as the logical, entirely predictable, direct response to this system of engineered pressure. By advancing a portion of the anticipated full, fair settlement while the case is still pending, funding companies can give plaintiffs the financial stability needed to withstand insurer delay tactics. This support allows injured individuals to maintain their households, continue medical care, and give their attorneys the time required to build the strongest possible case so that they may, in turn, negotiate the fairest, most appropriate compensation their clients deserve.

Simply put, legal funding was created to level the playing field. It restores a sense of balance to settlement negotiations and ensures that settlement outcomes reflect the facts, the injuries, and the law—not the plaintiff’s financial desperation or the insurer’s ability to outlast them.

Top Insurers Frequently Cited for Delay & Lowball Tactics
Allstate
Unum
AIG
State Farm
GEICO
Liberty Mutual
Anthem
UnitedHealth
Global Life
Conseco
WellPoint
Torchmark
Farmers
Progressive
Nationwide
Travelers
USAA

Info Box

The American Association for Justice (AAJ) undertook an exhaustive investigation of insurers and released its findings in a report entitled “The Ten Worst Insurance Companies“.

Allstate—The Worst Insurance Company in America

AAJ didn’t mince words when it came to Allstate, and you don’t have to be a rocket scientist or financial whiz-kid to figure out why. Allstate Chief Executive Officer Thomas Wilson publicly stated that Allstate’s loyalty is NOT to its policyholders.

Think about that for a minute. How many companies in America could say out loud that paying shareholders is more important than taking care of their customers? Not many.

Policyholders paid Allstate over $60 BILLION in premiums in 2024, presumably with the understandable, albeit misguided belief that they were in Wilson and Allstate’s “Good Hands”. By Wilson’s own admission, however, that belief is dead-wrong.

“Our obligation is to earn a return for our shareholders.”

Wilson has been crystal clear about Allstate’s mission: “Our obligation is to earn a return for our shareholders”. And for himself, too, evidently. As President and CEO of Allstate Corp, Thomas Wilson received a jaw-dropping $26,147,468 in total compensation in 2024. That’s up nearly $10 million from his ‘paltry’ 2023 compensation of $16,487,957.

According to AAJ, Allstate “essentially uses a combination of lowball offers and hardball litigation” to prioritize profits over people, including its own policyholders.

Systematic use of delay tactics, denials, low settlement offers, and hardball litigation strategies
- From “Good Hands” to Boxing Gloves is a book that explains “the McKinsey Strategy”, a curated playbook of some of the most controversial strategies that Allstate began implementing in the 1990s to devalue claims and avoid paying fair settlements.
Repeated regulatory actions for delays, underpayment, and non‑compliance with state insurance rules.
Allstate and State Farm blasted at 2025 Senate hearing over claims practices
- Whistleblowers allege estimate manipulation and intentional underpayment.
High complaint volume relative to competitors (historical NAIC data).
Strategic market withdrawals in high‑risk states despite strong profitability.

While publicly promoting itself as the “Good Hands” people in commercials and print ads, Allstate privately trains its agents to employ a “boxing gloves” strategy that includes denying and devaluing claims and fighting its own policyholders.

Allstate has a long history of being one of the most frequently scrutinized insurers for aggressive claims‑handling practices. In a recent (2025) Senate hearing, whistleblower testimony alleged that adjusters were instructed to alter estimates, undervalue losses, and intentionally delay and deny payments to reduce payouts.

Regulators in multiple states continue to investigate Allstate for rate practices, strategic market withdrawals in high‑risk states despite strong profitability, and post‑disaster claim disputes, reflecting a consistent pattern of tension between the company and consumer‑protection agencies.

Get A Lawsuit Loan Now

This application is for all plaintiffs except:

🔸 Colorado residents: Apply here
🔸 North Carolina residents: Apply here

PLAINTIFF INFORMATION

ATTORNEY INFORMATION

I give my permission for TriMark Legal Funding to contact me or my lawyer by phone, email, or text as detailed in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. I may opt out by replying “STOP”, and TLFLLC will not sell or rent my personal info to any third parties for marketing purposes.

I agree