Maryland sues cargo ship Dali’s owner over Key Bridge disaster on the last day to file suit
![Salvage efforts continue as workers make preparations to remove the wreckage of the Francis Scott Key Bridge from the container ship Dali five weeks after the catastrophic collapse. (Jerry Jackson/Baltimore Sun/TNS)](https://thumb.spokesman.com/uO6q6eDqVn9RLDznlEJuDvMVKgE=/600x0/media.spokesman.com/graphics/2018/07/sr-loader.png)
BALTIMORE — On Tuesday, the state of Maryland became one of the last entities to file a lawsuit against the owner of the Dali cargo ship, which this spring slammed into the Francis Scott key Bridge, knocking it down and killing six people.
Since then, small businesses, the families of the six victims, a survivor and government bodies ranging from the city of Baltimore to the U.S. Department of Justice have filed a barrage of federal lawsuits arguing against the Dali owner’s efforts to limit its liability to about $44 million.
In its filing, expected to be submitted Tuesday, the deadline to submit a claim, the state says it seeks to hold the Singaporean owner and manager of the Dali “accountable for their reckless conduct, negligence, mismanagement, and incompetency.”
The 984-foot, 100,000-ton Dali lost power March 26, striking one of the Key Bridge’s integral supports and knocking down its main span. Vehicle traffic was stopped ahead of the catastrophe, almost certainly preventing deaths to drivers, but six construction workers — who were already on the bridge, filling potholes — were killed in the tragedy.
Vessel traffic into Baltimore was stalled for months as crews worked to clear wreckage from the Patapsco River and the city will continue to feel the effects of traffic on its roads until the new bridge, which is expected to cost $1.7 billion, is constructed. Its anticipated opening is October 2028.
In some ways, the state’s claim mirrors the Department of Justice’s explosive and detailed filing last week, arguing that the collapse was “entirely preventable.” It, too, includes photographs of what it says are makeshift efforts undertaken by crew members to limit vibrations to the transformer, an integral part of the ship’s electrical system. (Vibration problems are a “well-known cause of transformer and electrical failure,” according to the DOJ.)
“The vibration was so severe,” the state’s filing says, “that the crew was forced to improvise remedies in an unsuccessful effort to curb damage to the ship’s electrical transformers and switchboards.”
The state argues that the “defects” present with the ship had been “present for many months” without being addressed.
“As a result of mismanagement, disinterest, and/or incompetency by the Dali’s owner and operator, many of the ship’s backup systems were removed, inoperable, and/or intentionally overridden,” the state’s filing says.
The state lists a medley of costs resulting from the collision, including part of the cleanup, the huge price tag of the new bridge, lost toll revenues while the bridge is down, environmental damage to state waters, and increased “wear and tear” on local roads, among others.
In response to other lawsuits, a spokesperson for the ship’s owner, Grace Ocean Private Ltd., and its manager, Synergy Marine Pte. Ltd., has said: “We do look forward to our day in court to set the record straight.”
The state’s claim follows a cascade of lawsuits since April. A local publishing company filed a proposed class action lawsuit early on, arguing that its revenue suffered because local enterprises were not buying advertisements. A local propane distributor argued last month that the bridge collapse has required its drivers to take longer routes, costing them business and that an “example should be made” of the Dali’s owners.
And just Monday, Fornazor International, a New Jersey “commodities and feed ingredients” exporter that had 24 containers of “soy product” on the Dali, sought more than $120,000 from the Dali’s owner.
The city of Baltimore also amended its complaint Monday. Crucially, it added that the “Dali and its anchors caused significant damage to submerged pipes, including a 72-inch diameter water main owned and operated by the City of Baltimore.”
In maritime law, it is difficult, because of legal precedent, to seek damages unless a party has suffered physical property damage. The city did not own the bridge, for example, but arguing that the Dali damaged a water main — its property — could provide it stronger legal footing.
Tuesday was set to be the final day claimants can file suit against the Dali’s owner in this case, but a motion filed Monday seeks to push that back for a certain group. Attorneys acting on “behalf of various cargo interests” asked for the deadline to be postponed to Jan. 24 for “parties with an interest in cargoes shipped aboard.”
They argue that many cargo owners do not yet know whether their property suffered damage.
“As many shipments have not yet been delivered to their intended destinations, and thus have not yet been inspected or surveyed, it is not yet known whether they suffered damage,” they wrote.
“Most Cargo Interests currently are not in a position to submit claims, such that the present deadline would prejudice those who later learn of damage to their cargoes and would otherwise elect to file claims in this proceeding.”