Sometimes it is argued that loser-pays principles should be suspended in cases where litigation is claimed to have gone on in the public interest, as a test case, or to procure a change in established law. Some jurisdictions have over the years weakened loser-pays provisions in ways that create important exceptions in a minority of cases. It is common for litigation to involve multiple issues, some of which are resolved in favor of one party, others in favor of its opponent, or for a plaintiff to be vindicated as to liability but for his claim of damages to be upheld only in part. Most loser-pays systems explicitly empower the judge or other magistrate to split fees in these cases, usually with the objective of allocating each element of cost to the party whose position was defeated. Thus it is quite conceivable for a plaintiff to establish liability but for the fee award mostly to favor the defendant on the grounds that most of the cost of the litigation was spent arguing over issues on which the defendant prevailed.
Some countries combine elements of the two systems.
Just as liability insurance covers the risks of being a defendant in litigation, so nations with loser-pays have developed markets for what is called legal expenses insurance , which helps manage the financial risks of becoming a plaintiff including the chance of becoming liable for costs in the event of a courtroom loss. Legal expenses insurance is typically available at quite modest cost, often as an added rider to homeowners' or automobile policies. Websites put up by plaintiff's-oriented solicitors' firms in Nottingham and East Anglia explain more about how the English system works. Although no national organization has arisen to promote it, loser-pays continues to be a popular reform idea in many states. Frequently these laws are hampered in their effect because they exclude what are the largest categories of cost, attorneys' and expert witnesses' fees.