The Russian Aircraft Litigation - Operator Policy Claims

The Russian Aircraft Litigation - Operator Policy Claims

Chubb and Fidelis cannot maintain direct claims for contribution or indemnity against the WRUs because their payments under the LPs did not discharge the WRUs’ liability to the Lessors; insurance recoveries are res inter alios acta, and the only remedy is subrogation. There is no double insurance or mutuality, and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Chubb European Group SE; Plaintiff: Fidelis Insurance Ireland DAC; Defendant: CMS Defendants; Defendant: HFW Defendants; Defendant: Shoosmiths Defendants
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Insurance Contribution Claim / Ruling on Strike Out/summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Applications to strike out or obtain summary judgment granted; Chubb and Fidelis' contribution claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Contribution Between Insurers, Double Insurance, Subrogation, Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978, Indemnity/reimbursement
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Contribution Between Insurers Double Insurance Subrogation Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978 Indemnity/reimbursement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chubb European Group SE

Plaintiff

Fidelis Insurance Ireland DAC

Plaintiff

CMS Defendants

Defendant

HFW Defendants

Defendant

Shoosmiths Defendants

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Insurance Contribution Claim / Ruling on Strike Out/summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Chubb and Fidelis can maintain direct contribution/indemnity claims against the WRUs (including CMS, HFW, Shoosmiths Defendants) for sums paid under contingent insurance policies (LPs) to the Lessors, or whether their remedy is limited to subrogation;
  2. 2 Whether the claims amount to double insurance entitling contribution;
  3. 3 Whether the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 applies to these claims.

Ratio Decidendi

Chubb and Fidelis cannot maintain direct claims for contribution or indemnity against the WRUs because their payments under the LPs did not discharge the WRUs’ liability to the Lessors; insurance recoveries are res inter alios acta, and the only remedy is subrogation. There is no double insurance or mutuality, and the 1978 Act does not apply as the WRUs’ liability is in debt, not damages, and there was no discharge of the same liability.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out or obtain summary judgment granted; Chubb and Fidelis' contribution claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Contribution claims by Chubb and Fidelis against the Applicants (WRUs) are struck out or dismissed by summary judgment.