BALTIMORE — Several feet below the mudline of the Patapsco River, underneath the spot where the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed, sits a water main owned by the city of Baltimore. The pipe is 6 feet in diameter, runs parallel to the felled span and could be key to the city’s success in its lawsuit against the owner of the Dali cargo ship that knocked down the iconic structure on March 26.

Despite clear economic consequences as a result of the collapse for Baltimore, a century-old maritime law precedent requires plaintiffs to have sustained direct, physical damage in order to financially recover. The bridge’s owner, the state of Maryland, obviously suffered damage. But without damage to a city-owned structure like the water main, Baltimore’s lawsuit might have trouble proceeding — which could explain the city’s evolving story regarding the pipeline.

In the days after the collapse, a city Department of Public Works spokesperson described the pipeline as having been inactive for several years. And when the city filed suit a few weeks later, it did not mention the pipe at all. In May, a spokesperson told The Baltimore Sun that the department was “unaware of any damage” to the pipeline. But the person quickly revised the statement, saying there were no operational issues related to the closure of the pipe, which it said had been operating at a reduced capacity, and that an assessment would later be completed.

By Sept. 23, on the eve of the deadline to file claims against the Dali’s owner, the city amended its lawsuit with a fresh allegation: that the “Dali and its anchors caused significant damage to submerged pipes, including a 72-inch diameter water main owned and operated by the City of Baltimore, which supplies vital water to the City and its residents.”

Aside from the water main, it’s unclear what other pipes the city is arguing were damaged. There is an active gas pipeline operated by Baltimore Gas & Electric in the area, but a BGE spokesperson told The Sun that it has not “identified any damage to the physical integrity of our electric and gas facilities.”

A city Department of Public Works spokesperson last month directed The Sun’s water main questions to the office of Mayor Brandon Scott. The mayor’s spokesperson, Bryan Doherty, did not reply to requests for comment.

The city might have simply completed an assessment in recent months and discovered damage to the pipe. Pamela Palmer, a Los Angeles-based attorney with Clark Hill who focuses on transportation law, suggested that the city likely realized, after filing suit, that it needed to “further investigate this and determine whether [it] had any actual property damage” that could be added to the claim.

Potential damage to the water main is one miniscule piece to the overall scope of the disaster. The collapse killed six construction workers on the bridge, blocked the shipping channel into Baltimore for months and is likely to result in tens of millions of extra vehicle hours on roadways as a result of traffic congestion before the span is rebuilt in 2028. A new bridge is expected cost roughly $1.7 billion.

But a Supreme Court precedent stemming from delayed repairs to a steamship in 1917 could make the water main essential to the city’s efforts to recover damages. The 1927 Robins Dry Dock Repair co. v. Flint decision limits those who can recover damages in a maritime calamity to entities that suffered direct, physical damage. If not for the “bright line rule” provided by the case, liability could be endless, the logic goes, creating a slippery slope of never-ending claims from countless parties tangentially affected.

The Key Bridge’s owner, the state of Maryland, certainly suffered direct damage and, thus, “Robins Dry Dock” would not apply to their lawsuit, which alleged “reckless conduct” by the ship owner. A separate law could enable the federal government to seek damages for its efforts in clearing the shipping channel.

Baltimore, however, will have much tougher sledding, legal experts say.

The city has suffered extensively as a result of the collapse. One such example is the toll that commercial trucks and other vehicles are taking on city roadways as a result of rerouted traffic.

But economic consequences are exempted under the “Robins Dry Dock” rule, except for those that can be directly tied to physical damage as a result of the calamity. Baltimore city government passed a law over the summer seeking to fortify its legal footing, but maritime law experts are skeptical it will have real impact.

Damage to the water main would offer Baltimore a more plausible avenue to receive some payment from the ship owner and Martin Davies, director of the Tulane University Law School’s Maritime Law Center, called the amended complaint a “fairly obvious attempt” to get around the “Robins Dry Dock” rule.

Proving damage to the pipe would allow the city to recover economic loss that it suffered as a result of any damage to the pipe, but it would not, however, necessarily open the door for the city to recover all of the vast economic damages it has and will continue to suffer.

“It’s not like a peg you can then hang all of your economic losses on,” Davies said.

Dozens of parties — families of the six men who died, government entities, private businesses and others — have filed suit in federal court against Grace Ocean Private Ltd. and Synergy Marine Ptd. Ltd, the Dali’s owner and manager. But many of those cite economic consequences rather than physical damage, and are likely to be thrown out by the judge, legal experts say.

Damage to Baltimore’s pipeline could allow the city to “see another day,” Palmer said.

“To be able to assert that you have that property damage is going to allow you to continue to have a place at the table,” she said.

How integral the pipeline was and the extent of any damage could be key in determining the value of a lawsuit.

A spokesperson for Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine said he had “no information” regarding the Dali’s potential damage to pipelines. In regard to the lawsuits, the shipping companies have said they “look forward to our day in court to set the record straight.”

The Baltimore City Department of Public Works initially said in a statement on April 2 to The Sun that the city water main running parallel to the Key Bridge was “inactive” and had “not been used for water transmission for several years.” The pipe had serviced Anne Arundel County, which no longer receives water from the city, the department explained at the time.

“The main will not impact water service to residents, businesses, or hydrants,” the department said in April.

After the Dali was refloated, The Sun asked the department on May 20 if the water main suffered any damage. Initially, the department said in an email it was “unaware of any damage” to the water main, but then revised the statement minutes later, instead noting that the water main “was operating at a reduce usage since Anne Arundel County does not use City water,” but not commenting as to whether it suffered any damage. After follow-up questions, the department said that the water main had been shut off the day of the collapse and that “there have been no operational issues related to the full closure of the 72-inch main.”

The city’s recent legal filing, though, stressed that the water main was “damaged by the combination of the Dali’s evasive maneuvers necessitated by its sudden loss of power, and the collapse of the Key Bridge.”

“After the allision damaged the water main in question, the City of Baltimore was forced to close the water main,” the argument states. “It remains closed, and recovery efforts around the remains of the Key Bridge have prevented the City from engaging in needed repairs to it, further exacerbating the damage caused by the Dali to the City of Baltimore.”

The shipping channel into Baltimore was closed for months after the collapse, but was fully reopened in June.

Throughout the channel cleanup and the refloating of the Dali, authorities had to be mindful of both the water main and BGE’s pipeline to avoid further damage to infrastructure. In a lawsuit filed last week, BGE stated that the Dali’s bow sat approximately 10 feet below the mudline and “critically, that a portion of the Pipeline was located directly beneath the Vessel.”

The ship or its anchor striking the gas pipeline could have created a separate disaster; in other instances, similar accidents have caused deadly explosions. BGE’s attorneys said the ship and bridge came “perilously close” to damaging either the gas company’s underwater pipeline, or its electric transmission lines that run above the shipping channel.

Taking the pipeline, 24-inch in diameter, and those transmission lines out of service to mitigate risk resulted in at least $2.5 million in damages, BGE’s lawsuit argues.

Like the bulk of the other lawsuits, Baltimore City’s does not specify the amount it seeks in damages.

--------

©2024 The Baltimore Sun. Visit at baltimoresun.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.