The Key Bridge Collapse: An Opportunity to Reel in Shipowners’ Protections

Elliott LaGorce

At 1:28 AM on March 26, 2024, the M/V Dali (“Dali”), a Singapore‑based container ship, struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge (“Key Bridge”) in Baltimore, Maryland. The allision caused catastrophic human and economic harm: It killed six of the eight men working on the Bridge, destroyed nearly the entire structure, disrupted a vital shipping channel and transportation route, and is estimated to cost up to $5.2 billion to replace. In the aftermath of the allision, the question quickly turned to who would bear the immense costs associated with the damage to the Bridge. One might rush to the conclusion that the ship’s owner would be liable for all of the resulting damages, but as this Comment will explore, admiralty law’s unique contours will shape the litigation following the collapse and may produce unexpected outcomes. Section I.A discusses the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, the Act’s history, and some of the instructive Fourth Circuit cases in which petitioners invoked the Act. Section I.B examines the admiralty rule preventing recovery for pure economic losses, the holding that established that rule, and applications of the rule across the Fourth Circuit. Given the magnitude of the Key Bridge Collapse, Section I.C examines how courts in other circuits have applied the Limitation of Liability Act and the rule against pure economic loss in analogous high-stakes maritime litigation.

Sections II.A and II.B address the various claims raised and predict how the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s precedents will apply to the facts underlying the allision. In light of the predictions in Section II.A and Section II.B, Section II.C argues that admiralty law should depart from pure economic loss precedent and advocates for a new approach to litigating maritime disasters.