On 13 May 2026, Mr. Justice Picken handed down judgment [2026] EWHC 1134 (Comm), striking out and granting summary judgment dismissing the contribution claims brought by Chubb and Fidelis against a number of the reinsurers of war risks (the war risk underwriters, or WRUs) under operator policies (OPs).

David Bailey KC led the counsel team for the largest group of the applicant WRUs, dubbed the “Shoosmiths defendants” in the judgment.

Background

In 2025, Butcher J held that Chubb and Fidelis (amongst others) were liable under lessor insurance policies (LPs) to AerCap, Merx and other aircraft lessors who had leased aircraft and engines to Russian airlines (or operators). Pursuant to that judgment, Chubb and Fidelis, together, paid over $340 million to AerCap and Merx (see [11]).

Separately, some of the same as well as other lessors issued over 90 claims under the OPs in respect of 258 aircraft and 39 engines, all of which had been leased to Russian operators. The alleged agreed values exceeded US$12 billion (see [13]).

Following the Butcher judgment, Chubb and Fidelis issued contribution claims that were case managed together with the OP claims (see [15]). They sought to recover the sums they had paid to AerCap and Merx from the WRUs who had reinsured Russian insurers in respect of war risks under insurances taken out by Russian operators.

By the time of the strike-out and summary judgment hearing, Chubb and Fidelis advanced contribution claims at common law, in equity on the basis of double insurance and under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (see [20]).

Judgment

Picken J held that these contribution claims were misconceived as a matter of law:

  • A contribution claimant cannot have a claim against a contribution defendant unless the payment by the contribution claimant discharged the contribution defendant’s liability to the recipient of the payment (see [36]). This is a requirement both for any claim at common law and under the Contribution Act.
  • The LP insurers’ payments did not discharge the OP reinsurers, because payments under an indemnity do not discharge the person liable, and the only exception is double insurance (see [66–67]).
  • Double insurance requires the same party to be insured by two or more insurers in respect of the same interest, on the same subject matter, against the same risks, with each insurer liable to the assured for the same loss (at [86]). This test was not met because the LPs insurers’ liability was expressly contingent. The LPs and the OPs do not respond to the same loss, and the LP payments did not discharge the war risk underwriters. Furthermore, the assured had no free choice as to which insurer to sue (a defining feature of double insurance), and there was no mutuality between the LP insurers and the OP (re)insurers, because the latter could not have sought contributions from the former (at [87–89]).
  • Chubb and Fidelis also did not have a claim under the Act because (a) there was no discharge and (b) as a matter of Russian law, the lessors’ claim was a claim in debt, which was not a claim for compensation within the meaning of the Act (see [101] and [118]).

The reinsurers also argued that the Contribution Act does not apply between insurers on the basis that they are not liable for compensation within the meaning of the Act. While inclined to agree, the judge did not decide that point in his judgment (see [119]).

For the purposes of the application, David Bailey KC was instructed by Kennedys Legal Solutions Pte Ltd (with Shoosmiths LLP as local agent). He appeared with Charles Kimmins KC, Michal Hain and Alexandros Demetriades of Twenty Essex.

Jessica Sutherland is also instructed for the Shoosmiths defendants in the OP claims.

A copy of the judgement in The Russian Aircraft Litigation – Operator Policy Claims (Rev1) [2026] EWHC 1134 (Comm) can be found here.