The Commercial Court (Picken J) has handed down judgment striking out contribution claims between insurers in the multi-billion-dollar Russian Aircraft litigation.

The claims arise in the context of market-wide insurance litigation concerning the non-return of Western-owned aircraft by Russian airlines in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Following a high-profile Commercial Court trial involving numerous members of Chambers in 2024-25, various “LP” insurers were ordered to pay substantial sums to lessors under their contingent and possessed (“C&P”) insurance policies (https://fountaincourt.uk/2025/06/commercial-court-gives-judgment-in-russian-aircraft-lessor-policy-claims/, [2025] EWHC 1430 (Comm), the “LP Judgment”). (The LP Judgment is subject to an appeal.) Other LP insurers settled claims with lessors prior to judgment.

The relevant trigger for contingent cover under the lessors’ C&P policies is (pursuant to the LP Judgment) that the insured lessors have not been indemnified under separate policies taken out by the Russian airlines, known as “Operator Policies”, in respect of which the lessors claim to have rights as additional insureds. The Operator Policies, which are governed by Russian law, were written by Russian insurers and reinsured by the London and international insurance markets. Claims against reinsurers under the Operator Policies worth in excess of US$12 billion are proceeding to trial in the Commercial Court in October 2026.

Two LP insurers – Chubb European Group SE (“Chubb”) and Fidelis Insurance Ireland DAC (“Fidelis”) – brought claims against reinsurers under the Operator Policies, claiming an indemnity, reimbursement and/or contribution in respect of substantial sums paid by them to lessors under the C&P policies. As the Judge explained at [4], their position, in a nutshell, was that: (a) they had been exposed to liability to the lessors qua insurer in respect of the loss of the aircraft; (b) the defendant reinsurers were (or, on Fidelis’s case, may be found to be) liable to the lessors qua insurer in respect of the same loss under the Operator Policies; and (c) if the defendant reinsurers provided an indemnity under the Operator Policies, then Chubb and Fidelis would not have been exposed to liability at all (or would have been exposed to liability in a smaller amount).

Picken J held that the contribution claims should be struck out or dismissed on the basis that they have no real prospect of success, and that instead Chubb’s and Fidelis’ recourse are claims by way of subrogation. In particular, Picken J held as follows:

  • Chubb and Fidelis are not entitled to an indemnity or reimbursement on the basis that they are secondary obligors, payment by whom has discharged the liability of the Operator Policy reinsurers as primary obligors. Payments by LP insurers are res inter alios acta as between those insurers and the lessors and do not have the effect of discharging any liabilities of the reinsurers under the Operator Policies.
  • Likewise, Chubb and Fidelis are not entitled to claim contribution on the basis of double insurance. The contingent nature of LP insurers’ liability under the C&P policies makes it impossible to view those policies as forming part of double insurance arrangements with coordinate liability under the Operator Policies. There is also no mutuality between insurers, because reinsurers under the Operator Policies could not have claimed contribution from LP insurers, given that liability under the C&P policies is (pursuant to the LP Judgment) only triggered in circumstances where the lessors are not indemnified under the Operator Policies.
  • The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 has no application in the present case. A claim under an insurance policy governed by Russian law sounds in debt, rather than damages, and section 1(1) of the Act does not apply to liabilities in debt. Further, and in any event, the Act cannot apply in circumstances where there has been no discharge of reinsurers’ liability under the Operator Policies as a result of payments made by LP insurers.

The judgment is available here.

Timothy Howe KC, Nik Yeo, Christopher Knowles and Orestis Sherman acted for Fidelis, instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain.

James Duffy KC, Max Kasriel and Lachlan Hopwood acted for Tokio Marine Kiln and MS Amlin in their capacities as war risks reinsurers under the Operator Policies, instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP. Akhil Shah KC is also acting for Tokio Marine Kiln and MS Amlin in the proceedings.

A number of other members of Chambers have also been involved in different aspects of the Russian Aircraft litigation.