A Florida court has denied a motion by lessor Carlyle Aviation Partners to dismiss a counterclaim by French insurer Chubb European Group, which is asserting salvage and subrogation rights over 23 aircraft seized by the Russian government following its invasion of Ukraine.

Miami-Dade Circuit judge Thomas J Rebull issued a one-page order on March 2, 2026, following a hearing on February 6, denying Carlyle Aviation Partners LLC's motion to dismiss Chubb's counterclaim in the case first filed on October 31, 2022.

Carlyle must now respond to Chubb's counterclaim within 20 days, according to the order seen by ch-aviation.

It marks another step in the 2022 lawsuit by Carlyle and affiliates against multiple insurers, including Chubb, American International Group UK Ltd and others, in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court. The matter is Carlyle Aviation Partners, LLC et al v. American International Group UK Ltd. et al (case no: 2022-020857-CA-01).

The backstory

Carlyle Aviation Partners initially filed a war-risk claim with Chubb and other insurers seeking coverage for aircraft leased to Russian airlines and seized after the Ukraine invasion, alleging breach under hull and liability policies.

After years of litigation, the Miami court found the insurers liable for Carlyle’s losses under a policy section covering war, confiscation, and "other perils". Chubb subsequently paid USD68.02 million, representing 8.25% of Carlyle’s total war-risk coverage, the US-based website Insurance Business reported.

After that judgment was handed down, Chubb filed a counterclaim arguing that, by paying the claim, it acquired property rights in the aircraft, including salvage and subrogation rights. The insurer relied on policy language that allows it to take covered aircraft as salvage where a claim is settled as a "total loss, constructive total loss, or arranged total loss".

Carlyle countered that the salvage provision applies only to claims arising under a specific section of the contract and only where the claim is settled on the agreed "total loss" basis under that clause. The lessor said Chubb’s liability, as determined by the court, stemmed from a different section of the policy, so the salvage wording was never triggered.

The court ordered that the dispute should be heard on its merits and denied Carlyle’s motion to dismiss.

According to Insurance Business, the case is important because the outcome could shape how war-risk and confiscation clauses, especially wording around "total loss", are written and interpreted in insurance policies. It may also determine how far insurers can claim ownership or recovery rights over assets that are still detained or expropriated.

Carlyle Aviation Partners has declined to comment.