Legal assistance in disputes and transactions involving aircraft, air carriage and aviation operations.
PRACTICE AREA
Aviation Law
01
Air carriage disputes and passenger claims
02
Aircraft leasing, purchase and sale
03
Aviation incidents and investigations
04
Claims against carriers and settlement
05
Legal support for aviation businesses
Selected court cases
Matters handled by attorney-at-law Vadim V. Andreev
Subrogation recovery after an aircraft accident
After a Tu-154M crashed in Iran, a foreign insurer sought €8.57 million from the engine manufacturer by way of subrogation. The first-instance court dismissed the claim, but the appeal court found that the engine's compressor disk had failed while its service life remained in force. It also found that a mandatory service bulletin requiring additional inspection reached the operator six days after the crash. The appeal court reversed the decision and awarded €8,568,638.53 plus RUB 202,000 in costs.
Aircraft collision during towing
On 3 September 2019, a Boeing 777-300 being towed struck the flap of an Airbus A330-300. The court found that the ramp controller had allowed towing without coordination and that the other towing team's supervisor had failed to ensure safe movement. It held the airport and ground handler jointly liable, including under the rules governing the owner of a source of increased danger. Documented losses and court expenses were awarded to the airline and its insurer.
Damage caused by a fuel tanker
On 1 August 2020, a fuel tanker struck a parked Airbus A321 after its driver fell asleep. The court allocated the covered loss between two liability insurers and the operator, leaving a USD 25,000 deductible with the direct tortfeasor. It accepted the cost of new replacement parts without depreciation and rejected a proportional reduction for underinsurance because the insured amount matched the aircraft's value. The appeal court left the award in place.
Challenge to the investigation report
After a CRJ-200LR returned to the departure airport with engine vibration and high exhaust temperature, the investigation commission attributed the incident to a bird strike. The airport operator challenged approval of the report. The courts found that the acting head's temporary authority had expired and that the later appointment was signed by an official whose appointment powers were not established. The approval was held unlawful on procedural grounds; the technical findings themselves were not overturned.
