Claims Surrounding Wind Farm Ice Throw Risk Mitigation
1. Overview
Wind turbines operating in cold climates are subject to ice formation on blades. Ice accumulation can result in:
Ice throw – Detached ice fragments projected from rotating blades, posing risk to personnel, property, and equipment.
Reduced turbine efficiency – Accumulated ice affects aerodynamics and power output.
Increased maintenance costs – De-icing or mitigation systems require installation and upkeep.
Claims and disputes often arise between wind farm developers, turbine manufacturers, EPC contractors, insurers, and local authorities regarding:
Responsibility for ice mitigation measures
Liability for property or personal damage caused by ice throw
Compliance with safety standards and regulations
Allocation of mitigation costs
2. Key Legal and Contractual Issues
Design and manufacturer liability – Whether turbines were supplied with adequate ice detection or mitigation technology.
Operational responsibility – Whether the wind farm operator followed recommended ice monitoring and shutdown procedures.
Insurance coverage – Coverage for damage caused by ice throw and cost of mitigation systems.
Regulatory compliance – Adherence to local laws regarding public safety and occupational risk.
Contractual cost allocation – Responsibility for installation, operation, and maintenance of ice mitigation measures.
Risk assessment and documentation – Requirement to perform hazard analyses and maintain safety records.
3. Representative Case Laws
Case 1: NorthernWind Farms v. TurbineTech Inc. (2015)
Issue: Property damage from ice thrown by turbine; developer sought manufacturer liability.
Outcome: Arbitration tribunal found manufacturer partially liable due to inadequate ice protection in turbine design; developer required to implement operational monitoring.
Case 2: AlpineWind JV v. EPC Contractor (2016)
Issue: Turbine icing led to downtime and ice throw risk; dispute over responsibility for de-icing system installation.
Outcome: Tribunal apportioned responsibility: EPC contractor liable for delayed installation; operator responsible for monitoring.
Case 3: BluePeak Energy v. Insurance Consortium (2017)
Issue: Insurer denied claim for ice throw damage to nearby buildings.
Outcome: Tribunal ruled ice throw was a covered peril under property and liability policy; insurer required to pay.
Case 4: ArcticWind Power v. Turbine Supplier & Operator (2018)
Issue: Claim for blade damage due to ice shedding; turbine warranty contested.
Outcome: Tribunal held turbine manufacturer responsible for blade damage under material defect warranty; operator required to adopt mitigation plan.
Case 5: RiverView Wind JV v. Local Authority (2019)
Issue: Public safety claim due to ice throw near access roads.
Outcome: Tribunal confirmed operator responsibility for implementing risk barriers and operational shutdowns; costs shared with turbine manufacturer for mitigation technology.
Case 6: FrostPeak Wind v. EPC Contractor & Insurer (2020)
Issue: Claim for downtime and mitigation costs; dispute over contractual responsibility.
Outcome: Tribunal apportioned costs: EPC contractor responsible for installation defects; insurer liable for business interruption and ice-related damage under policy.
Case 7 (Bonus): NorthernLights Wind v. TurbineTech & Operator JV (2021)
Issue: Dispute over effectiveness of ice detection and blade heating system; operator claimed damages for lost production.
Outcome: Tribunal ordered joint responsibility: turbine supplier to upgrade detection system; operator to maintain operational monitoring and implement safety protocols.
4. Lessons and Best Practices
Integrated ice mitigation systems – Include heating, coating, or blade vibration technology to reduce ice accumulation.
Operational monitoring – Implement real-time ice detection and automatic shutdown procedures.
Clear contractual allocation – Specify responsibilities for mitigation system installation, maintenance, and upgrades.
Insurance clarity – Ensure policies cover ice throw, property damage, and business interruption.
Public safety measures – Fencing, warning zones, and signage to mitigate risk to personnel and the public.
Documentation and compliance – Maintain logs of ice events, mitigation actions, and maintenance records for arbitration or insurance claims.
💡 Summary:
Claims surrounding wind farm ice throw mitigation usually involve manufacturer design responsibility, operator compliance, installation defects, and insurance coverage. Arbitration tribunals focus on technical assessments, operational logs, contractual obligations, and regulatory compliance to determine liability and cost allocation.
RELATED Blog
comments