By Linda Chiem
Law360 (March 25, 2025, 10:07 PM EDT) — Federal accident investigators’ recent determination that Maryland could’ve done more to protect Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge from a devastating collapse may complicate the sprawling legal battle over liability and damages in the year since a cargo ship struck the bridge and crippled a major East Coast transportation hub.
In the immediate aftermath of the March 26, 2024, incident, much of the scrutiny fell onto the owner and manager of the Singapore-flagged container ship, the Dali, that slammed into a Key Bridge support column, triggering a collapse that killed six construction workers and hampered access to the Port of Baltimore for several months.
But the National Transportation Safety Board threw a wrench into the complex legal battle on March 20, calling out the Maryland Transportation Authority for its failure to assess the bridge’s vulnerabilities and deploy protective measures that might have saved the structure from buckling the way it did after it was hit by the Dali.
Maryland officials have maintained that the “catastrophe and the tragic loss of life was the sole fault of the Dali and the gross negligence of her owners and operators who put profits above safety.” But the NTSB’s preliminary findings have significant implications for the ongoing federal court case that will ultimately determine who’s on the financial hook for potentially one of the costliest maritime disasters in history, experts say.
The Dali’s owner and manager, Grace Ocean Private Ltd. and Synergy Marine Private Ltd., petitioned the Maryland district court seeking to use the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 as a shield against the estimated billions in damages associated with the disaster. The Limitation of Liability Act would help preemptively blunt the legal blow for Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine only if the negligence or unseaworthiness causing the loss occurred without the petitioners’ “privity or knowledge.”
U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar is overseeing more than 50 claims from cargo customers and their insurers, transportation companies, injured plaintiffs, the State of Maryland, the City of Baltimore, and others. They have all objected to Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine’s efforts to either be exonerated from liability or have damages capped at $43.7 million — an amount that includes the value of the vessel at the end of the voyage, plus pending freight. A bench trial is scheduled for June 2026.
Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC construction litigation partner Michael F. McKenna told Law360 that the NTSB’s interim report is a “game-changer” because it could mean that “the shipowner and their insurance companies are not going to be the only pot for funds to deal with the litigation.”
“It didn’t just open up a new pathway, it opened up a new freeway” for claimants to potentially recover, McKenna said. “The limitation of liability now gets a little bit of oxygen into it to a degree … in that [the Dali’s owner and manager are] not totally culpable. This puts a different light on their actions.”
The NTSB said the Maryland Transportation Authority, or MDTA, failed to conduct a so-called vulnerability assessment on the Key Bridge, which opened in 1977. The assessments are mathematical risk models calculated using data on bridge span geometry and design, pier protection and lateral capacity, the characteristics of vessel traffic using the main navigation channel, waterway characteristics, and other factors to determine how susceptible a bridge might be to a catastrophic collapse from a vessel collision.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials specified the methods for conducting the assessments in guidance developed in 1991 in response to the Sunshine Skyway Bridge collapse in Florida. AASHTO reiterated its guidance to state transportation agencies in 2009.
“Had the MDTA conducted a vulnerability assessment of the Key Bridge using AASHTO’s Method II vulnerability assessment calculation, the MDTA would have had information to proactively identify strategies to reduce the risk of a collapse and loss of lives associated with a vessel collision with the bridge,” the NTSB said.
Some experts say that’s a harsh critique of the state agency, especially since MDTA officials had participated in the AASHTO subcommittee that recommended the guidance. Maryland, which built, owned, maintained and operated the Key Bridge, is now on the defensive, even as it pursues its own claim seeking to hold Grace Ocean and Synergy liable for the estimated $1.7 billion cost of rebuilding the bridge.
“The [Dali’s owner and manager] were sitting in a room by themselves, and the name of the room was, ‘All culpable parties, please enter,'” McKenna said. “Now, they have the State of Maryland sitting next to them. That’s the game-changer.”
Vulnerability assessments are designed to identify weaknesses in infrastructure when facing foreseeable threats, such as a potential ship collision, so “the absence of such a review means the MDTA never had a chance to proactively implement risk-mitigation measures, such as reinforced fendering systems or buffer security zones,” according to Kenneth “Tray” Gober, a personal injury attorney and managing partner of Texas-based Lee, Gober & Reyna.
“Legally, it introduces potential contributory negligence arguments, particularly in the context of civil claims,” Gober added. “It could also complicate apportionment of fault between public authorities and private defendants, especially when different damages caps apply for public versus private wrongdoers.”
Huth Reynolds LLP maritime law attorney Heewan Noh likewise said the NTSB’s recent findings are significant “not only in terms of safety policy but also in legal exposure.”
“The Key Bridge had no vessel-impact risk assessment on file, despite its location spanning a major port access channel with known container traffic,” Noh explained. “Although MDTA is a government entity likely shielded by sovereign immunity, its omission may come under scrutiny as comparative fault is sorted out in civil litigation.”
“The bridge’s pier protection — while compliant with 1970s-era design — appears not to have been updated to modern risk standards, and MDTA’s own inspections focused on structural integrity, not vessel collision vulnerability,” Noh added. “For claimants seeking to recover against private parties, this absence could shift arguments toward proximate causation and foreseeability — that multiple system failures aligned in a way that might have been preventable with modern assessments and upgrades.”
McGlinchey Stafford PLLC attorney José Cot, who specializes in maritime and insurance litigation, pointed out that under the applicable federal regulations, neither the Federal Highway Administration nor AASHTO can require a bridge owner to complete a vulnerability assessment study for a bridge designed before the release of AASHTO guidelines in 1991.
Experts anticipate that the Dali’s owner and manager will seek to offload at least some responsibility for certain damages by bringing up the fact that the MDTA didn’t do the assessment. That “would go to the issue of the pre-casualty condition of the bridge and potential comparative fault that could reduce the MDTA’s recovery,” Cot noted.
“There are specific rules that apply to the admissibility of NTSB investigations and reports in litigation; findings and reports are generally not admissible, but there are ways in which the underlying facts can be developed and introduced at trial,” Cot said. “This issue will certainly be the subject of tactical or strategic maneuvering by the parties and pretrial motion practice. These are also issues that will be brought up in the context of any settlement discussions.”
But that doesn’t mean Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine are in the clear. The NTSB already said in a preliminary report last May that the Dali experienced two electrical outages during maintenance the day before it left port, and various claimants have alleged that Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine knowingly operated an unseaworthy cargo ship with faulty electrical and mechanical systems that were prone to power outages.
“While the Limitation of Liability Act focuses on the vessel owner’s ‘privity or knowledge,’ evidence that government actors also failed to act doesn’t excuse the shipowner from their own duties,” Gober of Lee Gober noted. “However, the report may shift some attention to potential responsible third-party actors, potentially diluting the Dali owner’s share of liability and exposure while also drawing more complex litigation into the fold.”
“That said, if the ongoing investigation reveals systemic flaws or missed warning signs by the vessel’s operators, the court may determine that limitation of damages to approximately $44 million is inappropriate due to what they knew or should have known of those risks,” Gober added.
Separately, the City of Baltimore is also seeking to have the Dali’s owner and operator cover billions of dollars in rebuilding costs, as well as lost revenue from the port. The families of the six construction workers who died have also filed claims, and transportation providers who depend on the bridge have also filed claims for lost revenue.
Meanwhile, Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine in October agreed to pay $102 million to settle the U.S. Department of Justice‘s lawsuit accusing them of negligently operating an unseaworthy vessel. The settlement addressed the federal government’s claim for environmental cleanup and response costs and other damages under the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Oil Pollution Act and general maritime law.
The NTSB is still finalizing its investigation, and no probable cause of the incident has yet been determined.
— Editing by Alanna Weissman and Drashti Mehta.