Court Grants Summary Judgment To Aviation Insurers Because War Perils Exclusion Bars Coverage For Aircraft Stranded In Russia

Posted: June 19, 2026 / Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. Turner, Ian Weiss, Thomas A. Kissane / Categories Breach of Contract, Contract Interpretation, Summary Judgment

Court Grants Summary Judgment To Aviation Insurers Because War Perils Exclusion Bars Coverage For Aircraft Stranded In Russia

On May 13, 2026, in Aircastle Ltd. v. Chubb European Group S.E., Index No. 654131/2022, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs Aircastle (Ireland) Designated Activity Company and related entities (“Aircastle”) were aircraft lessors that sought coverage under two contingent aviation insurance policies for nine aircraft and two engines leased to Russian airlines that were not returned following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. The “All Risks” sections of the policies covered physical loss or damage against all risks howsoever occasioned, subject to a War Perils Exclusion that barred coverage for claims “caused by” war, invasion, hostilities, government seizure, and related perils. In the immediate aftermath of the invasion, Russia enacted governmental decrees prohibiting the export of foreign-owned aircraft, and the Airlines declined to return the aircraft to Aircastle despite repeated demands. The remaining defendant insurers—who had subscribed to All Risks coverage but not to the separate War Risk coverage available under the same policies—moved for summary judgment. The court agreed that the War Perils Exclusion barred coverage, finding that Aircastle’s own claim notices, deposition testimony, and interrogatory responses uniformly attributed the Aircraft’s nonreturn to the invasion and resulting Russian government actions, and that Aircastle’s speculation about alternative causes was unsupported by admissible evidence. The Court explained:

Aircastle itself stated that: ‘Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Russian authorities thereafter implemented a systematic policy to preclude the return of foreign leased aircraft to foreign lessors. These restrictions took immediate effect, making the return of foreign leased aircraft located in Russia de facto impossible as of February 24, 2022,’ and went on to concede that ‘[s]ome of the[se] facts [ . . . ] may concern ‘perils’ mentioned in the War Exclusion and in the War Endorsement’ (Interrogatory Responses at 9-10 [emphasis added; citations omitted]). While the Court recognizes the possibility that Aircastle does not know with certainty why the Aircraft were retained in Russia, it is nevertheless telling that its own contemporaneous assessments and subsequent admissions in interrogatory responses corroborate the evidentiary record established by the All Risks Insurers.

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP have extensive experience in insurance coverage disputes, including disputes over the scope and application of policy exclusions. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.