A blow to manufacturers as Thai Court confirms insurers’ denial of cover in wind turbine case
A decision from a Thai Court in Bangkok provides a potential shift in the renewable energy insurance sector, as manufacturers are held to a higher standard than usual 'industry practice'.
Summary of the case facts
In 2018 a wind turbine nacelle fell from a turbine in Thailand after the bolts connecting it and the blade to the tower loosened and fell out, with the strain on remaining bolts becoming too much to hold it. Fortunately, nobody was injured.
Upon investigation it was found that the subcontractor did not tighten the bolts to the required torque, which lead to their loosening as the turbine moved out. It was also discovered that an employee had turned off alarms and completed turbine resets without completing any inspections, which could have bought the issue to light and prevented the loss.
As this occurred within the defects liability period, there was a contractual obligation on the manufacturer of the turbine to repair the damage, for which they sought reimbursement from their insurers. However, in light of the findings surrounding the subcontractor and employee, the insurers denied the claim citing various policy exclusions, including those relating to gross negligence.
What does the decision mean for the renewable energy insurance sector?
In what has been described as a major decision from the Thai Court, it was determined that whilst the manufacturer and contractor adhered to ‘industry practice’ this was not enough to overcome the evidence of gross negligence presented. The Court found that whilst it was the actions of the subcontractor that were responsible for the loose bolts, the main contractor (which is a subsidiary of the manufacturer) did not take sufficient steps to ensure that the work was properly completed.
The Court therefore held that the insurers were entitled to deny cover and the claim was dismissed.
The decision reinforces the need for manufacturers and contractors to take steps to ensure work completed by subcontractors is executed correctly, as failures to do so could result in a denial of coverage from insurers.
Contents
- Follow the leader: Insurers using algorithmic underwriting
- Premium finance – a poverty premium
- 'Clear and unambiguous' exclusions: Cameron Soule v Woodward Design + Build LLC
- Adapting to change or falling behind? The FCA under fire from the National Audit Office
- Voldemort causes havoc at Sellafield – nuclear risks and insurance policies
Key contact
Tim Johnson
Partner
tim.johnson@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 976 6557
You may be interested in...
Legal Update - The Word
The Word, March 2024
Legal Update
Commercial Court considers requests for stay or anti-suit injunction where two competing reinsurance wordings
Legal Update
FCA writes to MPs over car insurance premiums. What do increases mean for fraud?
Legal Update
Biodiversity Net Gain: A new landscape for restoration clauses
Legal Update
The regulators’ pet project
Legal Update
Insurance and the escalating situation in Suez Canal
Legal Update
Update: Further debates on the Automated Vehicles Bill in the House of Lords this month
Legal Update - The Word
The Word, February 2024
Legal Update
Progress on the Automated Vehicles Bill
Legal Update - The Word
The Word, January 2024
Legal Update
Voldemort causes havoc at Sellafield – nuclear risks and insurance policies
Legal Update
A blow to manufacturers as Thai Court confirms insurers’ denial of cover in wind turbine case
Legal Update
'Clear and unambiguous' exclusions: Cameron Soule v Woodward Design + Build LLC
Legal Update
Follow the leader: Insurers using algorithmic underwriting
Legal Update - The Word
The Word, December 2023
![Al Mana Lifestyle Trading L.L.C. & Others v United Fidelity Insurance Company PSC & Others [2023] EWCA Civ 61 – Update](/getattachment/b24270a8-0bb3-4a8a-bcf0-37830f99591b/shutterstock_710149084_6x4.jpg?variant=HeroImageTabletVariantDefinition)
Legal Update
Al Mana Lifestyle Trading L.L.C. & Others v United Fidelity Insurance Company PSC & Others [2023] EWCA Civ 61 – Update
Legal Update
Proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996
Legal Update
Chubb leads a $50m consortium to help mitigate the increasing risks associated with lithium-ion batteries
Legal Update
D&O: Australian Courts consider the meaning of ‘personal advantage'
Legal Update
Trade credit: Australian Courts consider the meaning of ‘recoveries’
Legal Update
Energy insurance: Technip Saudi Arabia Limited v The Mediterranean and Gulf Cooperative Insurance and Reinsurance Company ('Medgulf')
Legal Update
Covid BI litigation (Autumn 2023): Insurance coverage disputes update
Legal Update - The Word
The Word, November 2023
Legal Update
Failure to prevent fraud: how can my organisation prepare?
Legal Update
Insurable interest: Quadra Commodities S.A v XL Insurance Co SE and Others
Legal Update
The Luton Airport car park fire – implications for insurers
Legal Update
Are amendments to be expected for the Arbitration Act 1996?
Legal Update
Simplifying sanctions clauses - LMA3100A and LMA3200 released
Legal Update
The Opioid crisis - how does the rise in Fentanyl overdoses affect insurers?
Legal Update
Incorrectly named insured policy dispute - was the broker or insurer liable?
Legal Update
Australian Court of Appeal considers welding exclusion
Legal Update
Contractors' liability and contract works exclusion
Legal Update
FOS: complaints involving damage to underground pipes
Legal Update
Recklessness not ‘accidental’ when it comes to trespass
Legal Update
Insurance considerations following use of RAAC concrete
Legal Update
CyberCube’s Global Threat Outlook: The evolving threat of cyber operations
Legal Update
A new digital safe space – How does the EU Digital Services Act affect insurers?
Legal Update
Extreme weather leading to a rise in property claims
Legal Update
Death and disgrace policies: What can insurers learn from the allegations against Russell Brand?
