![[2025] EWHC 1430 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Quantum
Quantum
There was no dispute that, in principle, if there was a loss of the Aircraft the Claimants should recover the agreed value of each. There was also no dispute that the Claimants which had entered into RISs, namely AerCap and DAE, should give credit for the amounts of those settlements.
- 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