[2025] EWHC 1430 (Comm)

Fecha: 11-Jun-2025

The Issues

The Issues

229.

The issues between the parties narrowed before and during the trial, with the Defendants admitting some matters, which had previously been the subject of non admissions or denials, including as to the insured status of the Claimants, and ownership of the aircraft and engines set out in Schedule 1.

230.

The essential issues in each of the claims can be summarised as follows.

231.

In the AerCap claim:

(1)

Was each of the AerCap Aircraft a total loss within the policy period? If the aircraft were lost after the relevant dates of policy expiry is the ‘grip of the peril’ doctrine applicable and effective to mean that the loss is to be treated as falling within the relevant policy period?

(2)

Is AerCap’s claim covered under the Contingent Cover of its policy; and if not, is it covered under the Possessed Cover?

(3)

On the basis that there was a loss of the AerCap Aircraft, was its cause a peril excluded from Section One of the AerCap Policy such that cover is under Section Three (i.e. fell within the WR Cover)?

(4)

Is payment under the policy rendered unlawful by EU or US sanctions?

(5)

Do AerCap’s RISs give rise to defences to its claim?

(6)

In what amounts is AerCap entitled to be indemnified?

232.

In the DAE/Falcon claim:

(1)

Have the aircraft been lost at any material time and if so what is the date when they were lost? If the aircraft were lost after the relevant dates of policy expiry is the ‘grip of the peril’ doctrine applicable and effective to mean that the loss is to be treated as falling within the relevant policy period?

(2)

Is DAE’s claim covered under the Possessed Cover of its policies (or one of them); and if not, is it covered under the Contingent Cover of its policies (or one of them)?

(3)

Was/were the causative peril(s) a WR or an AR Peril(s)?

(4)

Is payment under DAE’s policy(ies) rendered unlawful by EU or US sanctions?

(5)

In what amounts are DAE/Falcon entitled to be indemnified?

233.

In the Merx claim:

(1)

Have the aircraft been lost at any material time and if so what is the date when they were lost? Were the various Notices of Review/Cancellation served by WR Insurers invalid? If the aircraft were lost after the relevant dates of policy expiry is the ‘grip of the peril’ doctrine applicable and effective to mean that the loss is to be treated as falling within the relevant policy period?

(2)

Is Merx’s claim covered under the Possessed Cover of its policy; and, if not, is it covered under the Contingent Cover of its policy?

(3)

Was the causative peril(s) a WR or an AR Peril(s)? If the loss arises under the War Risks Endorsement, does the ‘Government of Registry’ exclusion apply?

(4)

Is payment under Merx’s policy rendered unlawful by EU or US sanctions?

(5)

In what amounts is Merx entitled to be indemnified?

234.

In the Genesis claim:

(1)

Has the aircraft been lost and if so what is the date it was lost? What was the effective date of policy expiry of the Genesis WR Policy? Was there leader authority for Endorsement 6? If the aircraft was lost after the relevant dates of policy expiry is the ‘grip of the peril’ doctrine applicable and effective to mean that the loss is to be treated as falling within the relevant policy period?

(2)

Is Genesis’s claim covered under the Possessed Cover of its policies; and, if not is it covered under the Contingent Cover of its policies?

(3)

Was the causative peril(s) a WR or an AR Peril(s)?

(4)

In what amount is Genesis entitled to be indemnified?

235.

Because each of the issues of whether there was a loss, the date of any loss, the relevant peril and causation require an examination of the same or overlapping facts, while the issue of whether each Claimant had a claim under the Possessed or Contingent Cover of its policy(ies) does not require such a detailed scrutiny of those facts, I consider that it is convenient to commence with the latter question first.