*Paige Lauenstein
I. Introduction
The March 26, 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge triggered numerous lawsuits from Maryland, the United States government, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and private citizens.[1] After the United States’ $102 million settlement,[2] the State of Maryland now leads the effort to recover over $1.7 billion for bridge replacement and economic damages.[3] The United States’ settlement was based on strict liability for cleanup costs, but Maryland must prove negligence to recover the vast majority of its claim.[4] Unlike past maritime disasters that neared or exceeded $1 billion recoveries,[5] Maryland must litigate without the added leverage of pending federal litigation.[6]
II. Background
On March 26, 2024, a container ship leaving the Port of Baltimore crashed into the third-longest continuous truss bridge in the world, the Francis Scott Key Bridge.[7] Most of the bridge collapsed in an instant when the ship, the Dali, lost power and steering capability, and struck one of the bridge’s supporting pillars.[8] The collapse killed six construction workers, brought Port of Baltimore shipping to a halt, and caused severe disruption to Baltimore area transportation.[9]
In April 2024, the owner of the Dali, Grace Ocean Private Limited, and its operator, Synergy Marine Private Limited (collectively “the Shipowners”), filed a petition in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to limit their liability to $43.67 million under the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851.[10] The State of Maryland, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Baltimore County, and the United States opposed the petition to contend for greater accountability.[11] Each of the government entities filed claims in response to the Shipowners’ petition.[12]
A. Federal Lawsuit
On September 18, 2024, The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a claim in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland seeking $103,078,056 and punitive damages.[13] On October 24, 2024, the United States settled with the Shipowners for just under $102 million.[14] The settlement addresses cleanup costs under the Rivers and Harbors Act, Oil Pollution Act, and general maritime law,[15] and ensures the Shipowners cover costs related to the emergency response to the collapse and the task of clearing bridge remnants obstructing the navigable waterway.[16]
B. Maryland’s Lawsuit
The State of Maryland’s claim, also filed on September 24, 2024, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, alleges negligence, unseaworthiness, gross negligence, and seeks punitive damages under general maritime law.[17] Maryland seeks compensation for: (1) bridge remnants removal and replacement costs;[18] (2) emergency response costs and economic losses;[19] (3) environmental cleanup and restoration costs;[20] and (4) breach of Maryland Port Administration tariff provisions.[21]
III. Federal Settlement and Strict Liability
Federal statutes like the Oil Pollution Act impose strict liability for oil spill damages;[22] however, the Circuits are split on whether Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act[23] imposes strict liability for the costs of removing obstructions to navigable waterways.[24] Although the Fourth Circuit has yet to weigh in on the split, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland has previously ruled the government does not need to prove intent to obstruct a navigable waterway.[25] The $102 million settlement with the United States only addressed cleanup costs where the Shipowners were strictly liable, requiring Maryland and Baltimore to litigate the remaining negligence and economic damages claims.[26]
IV. Maryland’s Burden to Prove Negligence
With the federal settlement resolved, Maryland must now prove negligence to recover bridge replacement costs (at least $1.7 billion) and economic losses (to be determined at trial).[27] Maryland must demonstrate the Shipowners’ actions or inactions, such as improper maintenance and inadequate training, were negligent.[28]
The 1980 Sunshine Skyway Bridge collapse offers a useful comparison.[29] In 1980, a ship struck the Sunshine Skyway’s support pier during a storm and caused a 1,200-foot span of the bridge to collapse into Tampa Bay.[30] Florida led litigation against the ship’s owners, recovering $19 million for the bridge loss; however, the amount fell far below the $244 million Florida spent to replace and modernize the bridge.[31] In contrast, Maryland’s estimated replacement costs of $1.7 billion far surpass Florida’s Skyway Bridge recovery.[32]
The 2010 Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico oil spill demonstrates how federal and state claims can interact in large-scale disasters.[33] The Gulf states—Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas—secured $4.9 billion for state-specific economic losses, with an additional $1 billion allocated for local government relief;[34] however, the United States government’s parallel settlement with BP, which included $8.1 billion in natural resource damages and $5.5 billion in civil penalties, bolstered the state recoveries.[35] The federal government coordinated its approach with state litigation by conditioning its own settlement upon the finalization of the states’ settlements.[36] Now, because the United States already settled in the Key Bridge litigation for $102 million, Maryland must recover billions without additional leverage of a pending federal settlement.[37]
V. Conclusion
With the federal government’s claims resolved, Maryland’s lawsuit now stands at the forefront to hold Grace Ocean Private Limited and Synergy Marine Private Limited accountable for the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse.[38] Unlike other states involved in maritime disasters where settlements neared $1 billion dollars,[39] Maryland no longer has a corresponding federal settlement to support its recovery efforts.[40] The burden of proving negligence to recover $1.7 billion rests on Maryland and its municipalities, making the remaining Key Bridge litigation a potential record-breaker in maritime state-led accident litigation.[41]
Photo Credit: Petty Officer 2nd Class Alejandro Rivera / U.S. Coast Guard, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
*Paige Lauenstein is a second-year law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law, where she is a Staff Editor of the Law Review and a Distinguished Scholar of the Royal Graham Shannonhouse III Honor Society. Before law school, Paige worked in Washington, D.C. as a business systems analyst in software delivery. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Maryland and is a certified Engineer in Training (EIT).
[1] Elizabeth Worthington, Companies Responsible for Dali Face Nearly 40 Separate Claims in Federal Court, WMAR News (Sept. 24, 2024, 5:57 PM), https://www.wmar2news.com/keybridgecollapse/companies-responsible-for-dali-face-30-separate-claims-in-federal-court.
[2] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., U.S. Reaches Settlement for Over $100M in Civil Lawsuit Against Owner and Operator of the Vessel That Destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge (Oct. 24, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-reaches-settlement-over-100m-civil-lawsuit-against-owner-and-operator-vessel-destroyed.
[3] See Lea Skene, Ship Owner in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Seeks to Blame Others as Liability Case Takes Shape, Associated Press (Oct. 29, 2024, 5:08 PM), https://apnews.com/article/grace-ocean-synergy-baltimore-bridge-collapse-liability-046c000bbb23af966423cf80498fc3f8; Justice Department Settles with Ship Company Over Baltimore Key Bridge Collapse for $102M, WYPR (Oct. 24, 2024, 6:33 PM), https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2024-10-24/justice-department-settles-with-ship-company-over-baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-for-102m.
[4] See infra Section III.
[5] See infra notes 29–37 and accompanying text.
[6] See infra Section IV.
[7] Baltimore Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse: What We Know About Ship and Bridge, BBC (Mar. 27, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68664664.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Greg Ng, Companies File Claim Under “Titanic” Law That Could Drastically Limit Bridge Collapse Payout, WBAL-TV (Apr. 2, 2024, 5:33 PM), https://www.wbaltv.com/article/bridge-collapse-dali-ship-company-petition-limit-payout-liability/60359628.
[11] Md. Complaint, In Re Grace Ocean Priv. Ltd. (D. Md. 2024) (No. 24-CV-000941), https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25173597/maryland-lawsuit-against-mv-dali.pdf; Baltimore City Complaint, In re Grace Ocean Priv. Ltd., (D. Md. 2024) (No. 24-CV-000941), https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.556480/gov.uscourts.mdd.556480.18.0.pdf; Baltimore County Complaint, In re Grace Ocean Priv. Ltd., (D. Md. 2024) (No. 24-CV-000941), https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.556480/gov.uscourts.mdd.556480.172.0.pdf; U.S. Complaint, In Re Grace Ocean Priv. Ltd. (D. Md. 2024) (No. 24-CV-000941), https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1369026/dl.
[12] Md. Complaint, supra note 11; Baltimore City Complaint, In re Grace Ocean Priv. Ltd., (D. Md. 2024) (No. 24-CV-000941), https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.556480/gov.uscourts.mdd.556480.17.0.pdf; Baltimore County Complaint, In re Grace Ocean Priv. Ltd., (D. Md. 2024) (No. 24-CV-000941), https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.556480/gov.uscourts.mdd.556480.171.0.pdf; U.S. Complaint, supra note 11. The Ship owners also face numerous claims by other parties such as families of victims, survivors, local businesses, longshoreman of the Port of Baltimore, and companies with cargo on board the Dali at the time of the crash. See Worthington, supra note 1.
[13] See U.S. Complaint, supra note 11.
[14] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 2.
[15] Id.
[16] Id. (announcing the $101,980,000 recovery for costs borne in response to the collapse and noting the separate $97, 294 recovery obtained by the Coast Guard National Pollution Fund Center for oil spill prevention efforts). See U.S. Complaint, supra note 11, ¶¶ 179–201.
[17] See Md. Complaint, supra note 11, ¶¶ 71–83.
[18] Id. at ¶ 4.
[19] Id. at ¶ 4 (explaining damages for emergency response, salvage and demolition efforts, benefits paid to affected workers and businesses, and lost revenue, including toll revenue, fees, and tax revenue).
[20] Id. at ¶¶ 100–49.
[21] Id. at ¶¶ 150–182.
[22] 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a); see also 33 U.S.C.A. § 406 (“[T]he removal of any structures or parts of structures erected in violation of the provisions of the said sections may be enforced by the injunction of any district court exercising jurisdiction in any district in which such structures may exist, and proper proceedings to this end may be instituted under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States.”).
[23] 33 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq.; see also 33 U.S.C. § 403.
[24] See United States v. Ohio Barge Lines, Inc., 607 F.2d 624, 630 (3d Cir. 1979) (finding intent is required to find a party in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 403); United States v. Baycon Indus., Inc., 744 F.2d 1505, 1507 (11th Cir. 1984) (finding 33 U.S.C. § 403 is a strict liability statute).
[25] United States v. Bowen, 428 F. Supp. 754 (D. Md. 1976) (holding the government does not need to prove intent to obstruct the waterway even when 33 U.S.C. § 403 involves criminal sanctions such as fines and imprisonment).
[26] Press Release, Synergy Marine Grp., No Punitive Damages Imposed: Grace Ocean, Synergy Marine, and DOJ Settle on Costs for Clearing Channel, (Oct. 25, 2024), https://www.synergymarinegroup.com/no-punitive-damages-imposed-grace-ocean-synergy-marine-and-doj-settle-on-costs-for-clearing-channel/ (“The settlement strictly covers costs related to clearing the channel, which we would have been responsible for in any case, and is not indicative of any liability, which we expressly reject for the incident that led to the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge.”). See Skene, supra note 3.
[27] See Md. Complaint, supra note 11, ¶¶ 71–83; Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 2; See Press Release, Synergy Marine Grp., supra note 26.
[28] See Md. Complaint, supra note 11, ¶ 72.
[29] See Joel Rose, Who Will Pay to Replace Baltimore’s Key Bridge? The Legal Battle Has Already Begun, NPR (May 2, 2024, 5:40 AM), https://www.npr.org/2024/05/02/1248229401/francis-scott-key-bridge-pay-replacement.
[30] Id.
[31] Id.
[32] See id.
[33] See Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., U.S. and Five Gulf States Reach Historic Settlement with BP to Resolve Civil Lawsuit Over Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Oct. 5, 2015), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-and-five-gulf-states-reach-historic-settlement-bp-resolve-civil-lawsuit-over-deepwater.
[34] Id.
[35] See id.
[36] Fact Sheet Proposed Consent Decree With BP for the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo Well Oil Spill, U.S. Dep’t of Just., https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/780696/dl (last visited Jan. 23, 2025).
[37] See Skene, supra note 3; Rose, supra note 29.
[38] See Skene, supra note 3; Rose, supra note 29.
[39] See Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 2 (detailing the $4.9 settlement split between the five Gulf states); Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., United States and the State of Alaska Opt Not to Recover Additional Damages from Exxon Mobil Under Reopener Provision of 1991 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Settlement (Oct. 15, 2015) (detailing that Exxon paid a joint civil settlement with the United States and Alaska for $900 million, in addition to $125 million in criminal fines).
[40] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 33.
[41] See Skene, supra note 3; Rose, supra note 29.
University of Baltimore Law Review 