The High Court is hearing a dispute involving insurance claims worth over €2bn for aircraft stranded in Russia following the invasion of Ukraine.
Irish-based lessors and others, are suing insurers worldwide as 400 aircraft were unable to leave Russia due to sanctions imposed in response to the invasion.
The months-long trial seews aviation leasing firms suing insurers over alleged refusal to indemnify after planes detained in Russia post invasion of Ukraine
Plaintiffs, including SMBC, Avolon, BOC Aviation, CDB Aviation, NAC Aviation, and Hermes, are seeking coverage under “war risk” or “all risk” policies for detained aircraft
Insurance firms, including Lloyds, Chubb, AIG, and Fidelis, deny policies are engaged, arguing planes not physically lost yet, under repossession, or cover prevented by sanctions
Over 180 lawyers wil be involved in trial, with plaintiffs claiming “catastrophic consequences” of the Russian invasion on their aircraft, while insurers present varied and contradictory defences in what plaintiffs describe as confusing and bewildering approach.
The case is being held in Ireland, a major hub for leased aircraft, as it has the largest concentration of leased planes globally.
Due to the large number of lawyers involved, the court is using a special venue in in Phoenix House in Dublin, with an overflow space set up to accommodate additional lawyers and media.
Paul Gallagher SC, opening the case on behalf of the plaintiffs said “the Russian invasion has had the most catastrophic consequences for my clients because the Russian state made a decision to detain the aircraft. These aircraft are of immense value for each of the clients which had a very significant effect on their business. Apart from a very limited number of returns, the planes have been retained for more than two years. There are a number of striking features about the case including the manner in which the defendants had dealt with the case. While there has been a general denial of the claims, there have been varied defences put forward which in many cases are contradictory and in some actually absurd. Some of them cannot agree on the meaning of their own insurance policies. It is not what is to be expected from insurance companies of many years’ standing. Almost every issue that could be raised by the insurers had been raised including even whether some of the plaintiffs were insured. While as a matter of law the defendants were entitled to adopt the position they have, their approach and the variety of arguments being made by them was confusing and bewildering. The plaintiffs are being told to prove every aspect and every issue. Some of the differences between the parties are what the plaintiffs say are semantic and not of substance and would not result in a different outcome.”
