Judge Dismisses Most Remaining Dali Economic Damage Claims
A 1927 Supreme Court ruling on economic loss narrowed the case to three surviving claims
The district court in Maryland hearing the civil claims arising from the [containership](/glossary/container-ship) Dali destroying Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge ruled on 25 August, dismissing many of the economic loss claims while allowing several to proceed.
The court had until this point declined to decide issues related to a 1927 US Supreme Court ruling that limited economic losses to claimants with a direct property interest in the damaged property, in this case the bridge.
Among the claims dismissed was one from Star Bulk, which argued its ships were unable to reach the loading berth in Baltimore harbour because of the collapse and that it lost profits or earnings potential as a result. Also dismissed were a class of longshoremen who lost work, an insurance syndicate, Ports America Chesapeake, American Sugar Refining, and a large group of businesses and individuals including a yacht sales company and American Publishing, all of which argued the blocked harbour and loss of the bridge interfered with their business.
The owner of the Dali, Grace Ocean, and the manager, Synergy Marine, had filed since at least October 2024 to block the economic claims, citing Robins Dry Dock & Repair Company. In April 2024 they also filed a motion seeking to invoke the Shipowners' Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 in relation to those claims.
Judge James K. Bredar wrote that the Robins decision had "loomed large over these proceedings," noting that nearly a century of case law has interpreted and applied it and developed clear exceptions. In the original case, a vessel's propeller was negligently damaged during scheduled maintenance, delaying its return to service by two weeks; a suit for the lost profits was rejected when it reached the Supreme Court.
Three claims survive. The City of Baltimore may proceed on damage to a water main in the harbour below the bridge, though the court dismissed the city's other claims relating to the loss of the bridge and damage to streets and other bridges, finding the city had failed to establish a proprietary interest in the Key Bridge. Baltimore County may proceed specifically on damages to its waterways, where debris from the bridge reached its shoreline, but not on roadway claims.
The third surviving claim is a class action filed by trucking company R.E. West alleging physical damage to cargo aboard the Dali. Part of that claim was dismissed, but the elements specific to cargo damaged by the allision and the collapse of the bridge onto containers survive.
The scope of the civil case has narrowed sharply. Of the 54 claims initially filed, all but 10 had already been settled or voluntarily dismissed after the companies and their insurers settled the wrongful death and personal injury claims and the claims brought by the state of Maryland. The 75-page opinion is likely to add further to the body of case law built up since 1927.
