AB KIAP successfully finished the number of cases against Lloyd’s reinsurers for the claims more than 40 USD millions

AB KIAP successfully finished the number of cases against Lloyd’s reinsurers for the claims more than 40 USD millions

On May 23, 2017 Arbitration Court of Moscow Region (cassation court) decided to leave in force the decisions of the Moscow Arbitration Court and Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, according to which foreign reinsurers’ claim to the Russian insurance company - AB KIAP’s principal - was denied in full.

This case was the last one in a number of disputes under reinsurance contract, connected with accident with Russian aircraft «Sukhoi SuperJet-100» in Indonesia on May 9, 2012, when 41 passenger and crew members died. The other cases were also successful for AB KIAP’s principal.

The above-mentioned decisions became the result of a new consideration of this case. Earlier this case was a subject of consideration of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, who revoked the decisions which satisfied the claim, and sent the case on new consideration to Moscow Arbitration Court.  

The main circumstance that should be determined during new consideration was determination of the aircraft flight type, when accident happened. Keeping this in mind, courts estimated the evidences and reasons of parties about  the type of aircraft flight, so to decide if this flight was an insured event for reinsurance contract.

Despite the opponent‘s reasons, KIAP lawyers succeeded to convince the courts that demonstration flights which were the part of the test schedule should be considered as test flights. Keeping in mind all these reasons, courts made the conclusion that accidental flight should be estimated as test flight, so this accident and connected liability of the insurer is insured under reinsurance contract. In that case payment made by reinsurers cannot be determined as unjust enrichment, so the claim isn’t reasonable.

Partner, Head of KIAP’s Insurance practice Dmitry Shnaydman acted for AB KIAP’s principal during consideration of this case.