Chubb and Fidelis lose bid to claim hundreds of millions from war risk underwriters over seized Russian aircraft.
The English Commercial Court has struck out contribution claims brought by two major insurers seeking to recover sums paid under contingent war risk policies following Russia's seizure of western-leased aircraft in 2022.
In a judgment handed down on May 13, 2026, Mr Justice Picken ruled that Chubb European Group SE and Fidelis Insurance Ireland DAC cannot pursue direct contribution or indemnity claims against war risk underwriters who had refused to pay under operator policies. The case - The Russian Aircraft Litigation - Operator Policy Claims [2026] EWHC 1134 (Comm) - was heard on March 16 and 17, 2026, with the judgment provided in draft on May 7, 2026.
The dispute traces back to the Russian government's restraint and detention of aircraft leased by western lessors, including AerCap and Merx Aviation, to Russian airlines. The lessors held two layers of war risk cover - operator policies arranged through the London reinsurance market and contingent lessor policies designed to respond when the operator cover failed. When war risk underwriters under the operator policies refused to indemnify the lessors, claims moved to the contingent lessor policies. In the earlier LP Judgment, Butcher J found Chubb and Fidelis, among others, liable to indemnify AerCap and Merx under those contingent policies.
Chubb paid US$57.6 million under the AerCap lessor policy. Fidelis paid US$240 million under the AerCap lessor policy and about US$50 million under the Merx lessor policy. Both then turned to the war risk underwriters, arguing that as contingent or secondary insurers forced to pay because the primary cover had not responded, they were entitled to direct contribution or reimbursement.
The court disagreed. Picken J held that insurance payments are res inter alios acta - meaning they do not discharge the liability of a third party, including an insurer who is primarily liable. The proper remedy for a contingent insurer that has paid out, the judge found, is subrogation - pursuing a claim in the name of the assured - not a direct action for contribution or indemnity against the primary insurer.
The court also rejected arguments that this amounted to double insurance. Picken J identified three reasons the double insurance framework did not apply - the contingent nature of the lessor policies meant they were not co-ordinate with the operator policies, the assured did not have a free choice of which insurer to claim against, and there was no mutuality since the war risk underwriters could never have sought contribution from Chubb or Fidelis.
A claim under the Civil Liability and Contribution Act 1978 also failed. The court held that the war risk underwriters' liability under Russian law sounds in debt, not damages, placing it outside the scope of the Act.
Picken J noted that 18 other lessor policy insurers who paid the vast majority of insured values had not brought contribution claims. The broader operator policy claims - involving over 90 actions across 258 aircraft and 39 engines with alleged agreed values exceeding US$12 billion - are scheduled for trial starting in October 2026.
For insurers and claims professionals, the ruling draws a sharp line - contingent insurers who pay out when primary cover fails must recover through subrogation, not by suing fellow insurers directly for contribution.
