![[2025] EWHC 1430 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Contingent or Possessed Cover?
Contingent or Possessed Cover?
The terms of the policies insuring the Claimants in each of the actions differ, and the Claimants do not all put forward the same primary case as to whether they are covered under their Contingent or Possessed Cover. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider their cases on this issue one by one. I will commence with AerCap.
- Heading
- Introduction 7
- The Issues 52 Contingent or Possessed Cover? 53
- Loss, Peril and Causation 102
- Chubb’s Russian Insurance Settlement Defences 219 Quantum 220
- Overall Conclusions 230
- The LP Policies and Claims
- The Airlines
- The Leases
- Summary of Key Events
- Summary of Insurance Settlements
- The Issues
- Contingent or Possessed Cover?
- AerCap
- DAE/Falcon
- Merx
- Genesis
- Loss, Peril and Causation
- Legal Issues as to Loss
- Legal Issues as to Peril
- Legal Issues as to Causation
- The Evidence Adduced
- The Salient Facts
- Analysis and Conclusions
- Notices to review and ‘grip of the peril’
- Genesis
- Sanctions
- US Sanctions
- EU Sanctions
- Chubb’s Russian Insurance Settlement Defences
- Quantum
- ‘Recoveries’
- VIM Airlines Thrust Reverser
- DAE/Falcon claim for costs and expenses
- Does the US$ 300 million aggregate limit apply to AerCap’s claim under the War and Allied Perils cover?
- Conclusions