US Justice Dept says it will inspect ship in Key Bridge collapse, signaling potential lawsuit
By Diana Novak Jones
Sept 4 (Reuters) -The U.S. government signaled in a court filing on Wednesday for the first time that it may file a claim against the owner of the ship that caused the March collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore.
U.S. Justice Department attorney Laine Goodhue submitted a letter notifying U.S. District Judge James Bredar that the government is among the "claimants and prospective claimants” that have negotiated with the registered owner of the ship Grace Ocean and its manager Synergy Marine Group to conduct inspections and testing on the vessel before it leaves to sail to China later this month.
Bredar is overseeing claims filed against the companies following the March 26 bridge collapse.
Justice Department representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Nor did a spokesperson for Synergy and Grace Ocean.
Maritime attorney Charles Simmons Jr of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston in Baltimore, who is not involved with the case, told Reuters thatit wasn’t clear from the filing what kind of claims the government could bring, but maritime law would likely limit them to recovery forfunds the federal government spent on clearing the channel after the bridge’s collapse or provided to the state for the bridge’s rebuilding.
Maryland has estimated it will cost $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion to rebuild the bridge.
The inspections and testing on the ship, which is currently in Norfolk, Virginia, are set to begin on Thursday and may continue until Sept. 14, if necessary, according to the letter. The ship is scheduled to sail to China on September 17, the letter notes.
In the early morning of March 26, the container ship, named the Dali, lost power and crashed into a support pylon, sending the Francis Scott Key Bridge into the Patapsco River and killing six people who were working on the span at the time of the crash.
Grace Ocean and Synergy filed a petition on April 1 in Maryland federal court to limit their liability from the crash to the present value of the ship and its cargo, which they estimated to be just over $43 million, according to the petition. Claimants have until Sept. 24 to come forward.
The city of Baltimore, where the bridge was located, filed the first lawsuit following the collapse. Filed in Maryland federal court in April, the lawsuit accuses the companies of negligence in operating the ship, claiming the operators left port despite an inconsistent power supply on the ship.
In May, the state of Maryland got approval to hire the Lanier Law Firm, Kelley Drye & Warren and three other law firms as it explores potential litigation over the collapse of the bridge. No lawsuit has been filed.
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
