Lawsuits over Baltimore bridge collapse likely, though limited, lawyers say

(Reuters) – The owner, operator, and charterer of the container ship involved in the collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge are likely to face legal action over the incident, which resulted in several casualties. However, experts suggest that U.S. maritime law may limit the liability of the companies involved.

Legislation related to open-water navigation and shipping in the United States, established through court rulings and congressional acts, could restrict the types of lawsuits that can be filed against the registered owner of the Singapore-flagged ship, Grace Ocean Pte Ltd, its manager Synergy Marine Group, and its charterer Maersk. Additionally, it may limit the damages they are obligated to pay, as stated by three legal experts interviewed by Reuters.

Representatives for Synergy and Maersk declined to comment on potential litigation, while attempts to contact a spokesperson for Grace Ocean were unsuccessful.

The economic losses incurred by Baltimore due to the port closure, a significant hub for car shipments in the U.S., as well as businesses impacted by the collapse of the bridge, may not be recoverable through legal action. This is because U.S. courts have interpreted a 1927 Supreme Court ruling to exclude purely economic damages from maritime incidents in claims against ship owners and operators.

Lawsuits resulting from the incident are expected to focus on injuries, fatalities, property damage, and losses, such as claims from individuals affected by the collapse or damages to the bridge, likely filed by government entities.

Legal experts anticipate that the lawsuits will be filed in federal court, with the possibility of plaintiffs seeking to halt the ship’s departure from the jurisdiction during the legal proceedings.

Those facing economic losses may seek compensation from insurance policies, with analysts estimating potential claims in the billions of dollars, potentially making it a record loss in shipping insurance. The vessel, named the Dali, struck a pylon leading to the bridge’s collapse after traffic was halted on Tuesday, likely preventing more casualties. Eight individuals fell into the river, and two of the six missing workers’ remains were found, with the others presumed deceased.

Two workers were rescued, one unharmed and the other injured, and claims for their injuries or fatalities could be directed at the ship’s owner, operator, charterer, or the ship itself under maritime law.

In maritime law, victims have the right to sue the vessel directly, unlike laws governing car accidents, and potentially have it sold to satisfy judgments. However, an 1851 law limits shipowners’ liability to the current value of the ship, which could be tens of millions of dollars.

Experts anticipate shipowners may request federal courts to cap their liability, relying on insurance for damages payment. However, if evidence surfaces implicating shipowners in the incident, their liability limitation could be revoked. Concerns have arisen regarding the Dali’s state during the collision and prior inspection issues, factors that could impact the assessment of damages.

Any lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals affected by the incident will not be constrained by Maryland laws capping non-economic damages in wrongful death cases, as maritime law does not recognize such limitations, as explained by legal experts.

(Reporting by Diana Jones; Editing by Leigh Jones and Lisa Shumaker)