Today, liability insurance and legal expenses insurance are generally accepted as benefits to the society and the idea of insuring against litigation risks does not repel us. In the past, however, it was held that such litigation insurance was fuelling litigation at best or going against good morals at worst. What are the reasons behind this? And how does this compare to the legal history of investment in litigation gains? Claim investment has been frowned upon for centuries and today a dismissive narrative continues to dog this ‘product’. So, the legal discourses surrounding insurance and claim investments have developed in different directions. How can this be possibly explained? This paper attempts to answer these questions by comparing the historical developments within European jurisdictions of the concept of insurance against litigation loss and that of the concept of litigation investment. Thus, it aims to improve our understanding of historical paths of both phenomena.

中文翻译：

---

保险与诉讼投资：诉讼保险和索赔投资的比较法律历史

今天，责任保险和法律费用保险被普遍认为是对社会的一种福利，对诉讼风险投保的想法并不排斥我们。然而，过去人们认为这种诉讼保险充其量只是助长了诉讼，或者最坏的情况是违背了良好的道德。这背后的原因是什么？这与诉讼收益投资的法律历史相比如何？几个世纪以来，索赔投资一直受到反对，今天，一种不屑一顾的说法继续困扰着这种“产品”。因此，围绕保险和理赔投资的法律话语已经朝着不同的方向发展。这怎么可能解释？本文试图通过比较欧洲司法管辖区内诉讼损失保险概念和诉讼投资概念的历史发展来回答这些问题。因此，它旨在提高我们对这两种现象的历史路径的理解。