What happened?
The Dali, a container ship containing cargo, crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge near Baltimore, causing the bridge to collapse. The crash sadly caused six deaths and left another individual in a serious condition.
Whilst the cause is yet to be officially determined, the Dali has been reported to have experienced power issues. At the time of the crash, the ship had valid certification of its structural integrity and equipment functionality and had passed two recent inspections. The crew made a mayday signal, which has been said to have mitigated the losses, as police prevented further cars from entering the bridge.
The third largest of its kind, the bridge spans nearly 1.6 miles in length and is 184ft tall, meaning that a re-build is no easy task.
Supply chain and disruption
The incident has had a major impact on supply chains and caused significant disruption, due to preventing the road traffic from passing over the bridge and shipping activity in the port. Estimated to carry 11.5 million vehicles a year, such traffic will need to be re-routed elsewhere. Whilst there is a tunnel closer to the city, serving as an alternative route, some vehicles, such as lorries carrying hazardous materials, are prohibited from using it. Several merchant vessels were also trapped in Baltimore port.
Two alternative channels have been opened since the crash and there are hopes to open the entire permanent channel by the end of May.
Commenting on the incident, container shipping expert, Lars Jansen said that whilst from a global perspective, the incident will not have a significant impact, it will "create significant problems on the US East Coast for US importers and exporters".
Considerations for insurers
“I would say it's certainly going to be one of the largest marine losses in history.”
With claims potentially arising under:
- marine / freight / cargo policies;
- property damage policies for the damage to the bridge and business interruption following the port’s closure and traffic prevention on the bridge;
- liability lines for the loss of life, injury and property damage;
- litigation for charter party disputes regarding perishable cargo and delays;
- other personal lines issued for the vehicles and individuals on the bridge,
the insurance costs associated with the incident are estimated to be multiple billions of dollars, overtaking claims that arose from the Costa Concordia disaster. London Market firms are expected to be the most exposed.
The ship owners have declared a general average. Although this usually occurs where cargo is jettisoned, it can be declared following “any extraordinary sacrifice” or one that is made for the common safety to preserve the property, meaning those costs not factored into the voyage costs. Such costs can include those of removing the bridge and freeing the ship, returning it safely to a port and moving the containers onto other ships or into places of storage.
Due to the loss of power that the ship was potentially experiencing, there may also be considerations as to whether the ship was seaworthy. If the ship was not seaworthy, this could be a breach of the carriage contract and therefore other parties to the ‘maritime adventure’ may seek recovery of their liability through the breach. The ship’s voyage data recorder (VDR), the equivalent of a black box, can be studied to demonstrate when it experienced a malfunction leading to the loss of power and whether this impacted steering or propulsion or both.
The FBI are currently investigating the crash and Baltimore city is taking legal steps to hold “all entities responsible”. The National Transportation Safety Board are also carrying out investigations, including into the matter of whether the ship had contaminated fuel.
President, Joe Biden, has vowed that the Federal Government will pay to re-build the bridge “as rapidly as humanly possible” and assist to maintain all business and commerce in the area. This is intended to help reduce the delay of allocating such costs and reduce the interruption as quickly as possible.
Key contact
Tim Johnson
Partner
tim.johnson@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 976 6557
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
Smooth sailing ahead: The LMA's new Open Form Default Clause
Legal Update
Oklahoma earthquake: Racial discrimination in adjudication
Legal Update
Words matter: Another case on the importance of accurate drafting
Legal Update
Parametric flood policies - Insurers no longer in uncharted waters?
Legal Update
Insurance and the escalating situation in Suez Canal
Legal Update
Energy insurance: Technip Saudi Arabia Limited v The Mediterranean and Gulf Cooperative Insurance and Reinsurance Company ('Medgulf')
Published Article
Deal over jets stranded in Russia may serve as blueprint
Legal Update
The Luton Airport car park fire – implications for insurers
Legal Update
Australian Court of Appeal considers welding exclusion
Legal Update
Contractors' liability and contract works exclusion
Legal Update
FOS: complaints involving damage to underground pipes
Legal Update
Incorrectly named insured policy dispute - was the broker or insurer liable?
Legal Update
Property damage oil spills, reliance and duties of delivery drivers
Legal Update
Recklessness not ‘accidental’ when it comes to trespass
Legal Update
Underlying contracts remain key in arguments over scope of co-insurance
Legal Update
Insurance considerations following use of RAAC concrete
Legal Update - Perils: property insurance newsletter
Perils: Property insurance claims newsletter - October 2023
Legal Update
Extreme weather leading to a rise in property claims
Legal Update
The recent judgment in MacPhail v Allianz Insurance Plc
Legal Update - RAAC
Insurance considerations of RAAC failures - air bubbles belong in chocolate, not concrete!
Legal Update - RAAC
The RAAC crisis: Is it really back-to-school this September?
Legal Update
A ‘slick’ result for Shell: the Supreme Court considers limitation in Jalla v Shell
Legal Update
Parties are in hot water over hot works dispute: proceedings issued in Britannia Hotels (No.2) v Aviva Insurance Limited
Legal Update
The perfect financial storm: top 5 trends making a mischief with BI adjustments
Legal Update
COVID-19 BI Claims rumble on
Legal Update
The risk of encroachment is not a nuisance: Davies v Bridgend County Council
Legal Update
Visual intrusion is oppressive: Fearn v Tate Gallery
Legal Update
Proximate cause focus: Brian Leighton Garages v Allianz and Allianz v University of Exeter
Legal Update
Perils: Property insurance claims newsletter - May 2023
Legal Update
It’s “Bomb’s Away” for Allianz as they receive a declaration on proximate cause: Allianz Insurance Plc v University of Exeter
Legal Update
“Being on display in a zoo” is oppressive for luxury flat owners as the Tate Modern is found to be liable in nuisance
Legal Update
Court of Appeal considers ‘proximate cause’ for Pollution or Contamination exclusion in All Risks policy
Legal Update
The Ukraine War: Aviation and cyber issues
Legal Update
Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute
On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.
Legal Update
Building cost increases and the impact of underinsurance
Legal Update
Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic
The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.
Legal Update
Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?
The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.
Legal Update
Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations
With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.
Published Article
Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd: a landlord’s breach of promise
It cannot be often that the Court of Appeal has had to resort to obscure Victorian cases on breach of promise to marry to assist with a modern landlord and tenant issue.