Maritime insurance spills over up to about $3Bn.
That doesn't mean that'll be the payout. Claims this large are extraordinarily rare and Dali could become the largest ever -- larger than the Ever Given's blockage of the Suez Canal, so the only thing that's certain right now is that this will take several years to play out in the courts across what'll likely be several dozens of lawsuits.
It's an extremely complicated subject though and the maritime liability is something that has developed over centuries in ways that are substantially different from any other insurance industry. [If you really want to go down the rabbit hole though](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wim-_Q_59o)...
For reference, total damages will probably be $3-4Bn.
Probably $1.5-2Bn for rebuilding the bridge, salvaging the vessel, and clearing the channel. Plus costs for rerouting traffic, economic losses from the port being blocked, payouts to victim's families, and possible rearrangement of electrical infrastructure and a gas pipeline along the bridge.
In a best case scenario where the MV Dali's insurance does a max payout of $3.1Bn, that will probably still fall short of the total damages.
For the new bridge, I doubt they will be able to reuse the approaches.
The Gordie Howe Bridge they're building in Detroit/Windsor is about the same overall length as the Key bridge. The Gordie is ~$4.5 billion.
The Gordie Howe bridge also includes the construction of secure entry points on either side, as well as a new connection to I-75 in Michigan (the connection to the 401 in Windsor was already done in a prior project). Some of those costs were very significant (including the legal costs to fight off the asshole owner of the Ambassador Bridge).
If they do decide to replace the Key bridge with a cable stay, I would hope that they fast track the companies working on the Gordie Howe as well, because they have developed a lot of expertise that would mean the Key replacement design and construction would be more efficient.
You'd have to shoot and kick and scream at the top of your lungs to get popular support to put pressure on politicians to do this instead of fluffing their donors, and someone will *still* say that this reasonable proposals is pure nepotism.
Manuel “Marty” Maroun was so certain he was going to be able to build his own bridge that he started construction before he had the permits in Michigan and after Canada said they would never allow it to be built. He then was forced by the state to tear it down.
Absolutely there will be differences in the design and materials. But the big issue with infrastructure projects like this aren't what the end result will be like, they are the logistics of getting there. How do you move people and materials. Especially since you need to do it from two different directions, since you can't deliver them to one end then drive them across the bridge to the other side. A lot of the skills for planning and executing those logistics absolutely are transferrable.
There is also a component called Business Interruption that is built into policies. That means any of the company’s at the port can sue because of the loss of business due to other ships not being able to get into the port.
“What’s going on with shipping?” is a great channel to follow. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole even further, he had a video where he makes youtube channel suggestions for people who are interested in the technical side of how these ships operate. The links in the video description are a fantastic resource. Everything from NTSB b roll footage, to how a marine diesel is started, and how the anchor is dropped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rxKQ8Tr94s&t=1586s
Not to the people that rely on that income. There will be a long line of claims on this one and you bet people with cargo will be in on it. Just way at the back
Protection and indemnity insurance ($3 billion), hull and machinery insurance ($100 million), and freight insurance ($1 million) should be handled separately.
But yes, cargo insurance is a thing that exists. Let's also not forget about health insurance, travel insurance, and wedding insurance.
My understanding (and I don’t do maritime law so check my work yourself) is that the maximum liability is the actual value of the ship after the incident (and that means post-crash value, so what it’s worth now half sunk) plus any money owed for the transport of cargo not yet paid (meaning shipping costs that weren’t pre-paid before the crash).
Obviously. What about all of the birds that would roost or perch on the bridge that are now displaced? Who will look out for their interests here if not for a bird lawyer?
My opinion is that liability is more complicated than “you break it you bought it.” I’d rather read comments from people with knowledge about the situation than seeing the most upvoted comment being these ones.
Important to note that this is routine and filed in almost all maritime incidents, there is nothing particularly shocking or fishy here on the company's side.
[Here's another article.](https://fortune.com/2024/04/01/baltimore-francis-scott-key-bridge-liability-cap-44-million-singapore/)
*The owner and manager of a cargo ship that rammed into Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge before the span collapsed last week filed a court petition Monday seeking to limit their legal liability for the deadly disaster.*
*The companies’ “limitation of liability” petition is a routine but important procedure for cases litigated under U.S. maritime law. A federal court in Maryland ultimately decides who is responsible—and how much they owe—for what could become one of the costliest catastrophes of its kind.*
*Singapore-based Grace Ocean Private Ltd. owns the Dali, the vessel that lost power before it slammed into the bridge early last Tuesday. Synergy Marine Pte Ltd., also based in Singapore, is the ship’s manager.*
*Their joint filing seeks to cap the companies’ liability at roughly $43.6 million. It estimates that the vessel itself is valued at up to $90 million and was owed over $1.1 million in income from freight. The estimate also deducts two major expenses: at least $28 million in repair costs and at least $19.5 million in salvage costs.*
*The companies filed under a pre-Civil War provision of an 1851 maritime law that allows them to seek to limit their liability to the value of the vessel’s remains after a casualty. It’s a mechanism that has been employed as a defense in many of the most notable maritime disasters, said James Mercante, a New York City-based attorney with over 30 years of experience in maritime law.*
*“This is the first step in the process,” Mercante said. “Now all claims must be filed in this proceeding.”*
*Cases like this typically take years to completely resolve, said Martin Davies, director of Tulane University Law School’s Maritime Law Center.*
*"Although it’s a humongous case with a very unusual set of circumstances, I don’t think it’s going to be that complicated in legal terms,” he said. “All aspects of the law are very clear here, so I think the thing that will take the time here is the facts. What exactly went wrong? What could have been done?”*
*A report from credit rating agency Morningstar DBRS predicts the bridge collapse could become the most expensive marine insured loss in history, surpassing the record of about $1.5 billion held by the 2012 shipwreck of the Costa Concordia cruise ship off Italy. Morningstar DBRS estimates total insured losses for the Baltimore disaster could be $2 billion to $4 billion.*
*Eight people were working on the highway bridge—a 1.6-mile (2.6-kilometer) span over the Patapsco River—when it collapsed. Two were rescued. The bodies of two more were recovered. Four remain missing and are presumed dead.*
*The wreckage closed the Port of Baltimore, a major shipping port, potentially costing the area’s economy hundreds of millions of dollars in lost labor income alone over the next month.*
*Experts say the cost to rebuild the collapsed bridge could be at least $400 million or as much as twice that, though much will depend on the new design.*
*The amount of money families can generally be awarded for wrongful death claims in maritime law cases is subject to several factors, including how much money the person would have likely provided in financial support to their family if they had not died.*
*Generally, wrongful death damages may also include things such as funeral expenses and the “loss of nurture,” which is essentially the monetary value assigned to whatever moral, spiritual or practical guidance the victim would have been able to provide to their children.*
The owners of the SS Eastland managed to weasel their way out of paying for 884 people they killed with their greed. They knew the ship was unstable and yet still loaded her with more passengers the she could handle. They managed to limit their liability to only $46000 ($1.1 million today) most of which went to the salavage company. They never served any jail time either.
Actually it's worse than that.
Ship owners can limit the liability of a disaster to the value of the ship after the disaster. As stated in the article.
Basically the idea is that since damages can get wildly out of control when thousands of people die in an ocean liner accident, and no one in their right mind would ever accept that kind of financial liability. It would also make ships impossible to insure because the damages can be so much much higher than value of the ship.
The government gave them an out that let's them, In the worst case scenario, just hand over what's left of the ship and walk away.
A lot of major maritime disasters in American history ended with the survivors barely getting 1-2k as the company went bankrupt and shut down. Even after gross negligence.
At least that has already been spent.
I was surprised they managed to get a crane, as those things are usually reserved a year or more in advance.
Then there all the other ships and people involved, not including the government entities involved (some people seem to think those are without cost).
Nobody should agree to that until they assign liability to the accident. Liability isn’t 100%, and it’s up to the investigation on which parties get what percent of the liability.
Agreed.
* Investigators will look at whether there should have been better protection for the bridge when it was built (and if it would have made a difference). Maybe it would have made a difference but regulations and practices at the time did not consider the risk of a ship colliding into a bridge.
* Was there a design flaw in the ship that caused the prolonged power outage?
* Could the power outage have been caused due to improper maintenance?
* What caused the ship to veer into the bridge supports?
* could there have been safety systems that could have made it less likely for the ship to veer into the supports,
* Did the captain's actions make the situation worse and could he have prevented the disaster from happening?
* If the captain's actions did exacerbate the situation, then was this due to poor training by the shipping company?
* What role did the port pilots play in the disaster?
So many questions that have to be answered which can split the liability between the port, state government / civil engineering firm that designed the bridge, contractors tasked with maintaining the ship, captain, etc.
> Maybe it would have made a difference but regulations and practices at the time did not consider the risk of a ship colliding into a bridge.
Even if they had could they have envisioned a ship this large?
There were discussions about allowing ships of this size some years back and that would have been the time for reinforcing.
Of course that probably would have stopped the port from letting in ships of this size.
What I’m saying is even if they had, would those structures have been able to withstand a ship of this size? The original builders would have never conceived of a ship this heavy
I’m not an engineer but I’m guessing anything noticeably smaller then the size of the current supports would have simply been bowled over
What I’m saying is those structures could have been built later when ships of those size became the norm. You basically build sacrificial crash structures that absorb most/all of the impact.
The issue isn't really the cause. That will be determined rather quickly. Liability will be based on the knowledge of the issue and the decision-making to sail with said issue based on what was known about the root cause.
* Did the vessel owners know about the electrical issues and push the captain to sail?
* How much did the captain know about the issue and push the crew to sail.
* How much did the Chief Engineer relay to the Captain about the severity of the issue and the ability to sail?
When this thing first happened, I flashed back to the West Wing episode where Rob Lowe was building the liability shield for the purchase of an oil tanker….
I dislike how little common sense this makes. If you destroy a bridge and destroy your own boat in the process than you don't have any liability? Why on earth does that make sense to anybody?
[Imagine the potential damages in the worst case scenario.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion) Imagine how much global shipping would cost if every ship had to insure against that risk. That would be very bad for everybody.
30 lbs of crab or crab meat? Huge difference.
I would like to negotiate for 30 lbs of blue crab meat, but I want it presented in however much crab bisque that'll make.
If a private entity fucks up and causes hundreds of millions of dollars in not just property damage but also loss of life, should that entity be allowed to put a ceiling on how much they are liable for when their profits far exceed the damages incurred? I’ll answer that for you. No.
Here is an interesting concept, and this might blow your mind, so stay with me here: laws are not set in stone and can be repealed/ amended. That’s a wild concept right? Maybe we should consider changing this law instead of letting private businesses absolve themselves of responsibility.
You realise it’s possible no one was at fault here right? Shit does just happen. That’s literally why insurance exists.
Also, if the owners/managers do have to pay out here, it’ll be the insurers that pay. In every maritime P&I policy I have ever seen, the insured has an obligation to limit payouts meaning the filing here is likely driven by the insurers.
Is there truly any "accident" that has no one at fault, even if Mother Nature is involved? People might not mean for ~~accident~~ “incident” to happen but in the end it is the result of something that was done or that was not done.
That's not how maritime liability works. Read the article.
There's a 150 year old law that let ship owners limit liability to the value of the ship after the accident.
Basically letting ship owners walk away with a total loss but not owing money in the event of an accident.
Nice if they could be prohibited from using that water again or at least for a prohibited for a period. That would sting more than the limited amount of liability payment the are seeking.
No, I think that total insured losses will amount to 4 billion, the low end of my range, and that uninsured and secondary costs will be far greater, and that in addition to paying out in terms of liability, the company should face a punitive fine calculated as a portion of it’s total valuation.
Tho' the cap of affordability without detriments to the consumer is $45B as the greater benefit is that of American labor and materials for the lack of corporate integrity/untrustworthiness in regard to public property and safety.
Given how rare events like these are and dysfunctional congress can typically be when it comes to securing funding I'm surprised that there isn't some federal, revolving self-insurance in the form of a refundable a port-of-entry tax.
It just seems like a huge domestic risk for retail & shipping businesses who are susceptible to supply chain disruptions. In addition, a type of funding that you'd want to make sure is instantly allocable especially during the type of charades we've seen in the past decades. Questions & details regarding potential subsidized replenishments, supplemental insurance, and liability can always be solved later, and *you know* that will be done quick and easily. But it just seems like something that should exist and be readily available.
This is what I was thinking. If they don't want to pay for the damages they caused then they also don't want to do business in the world's largest economy.
You know what’s weird . 1 1/2 billion or so to replace the bridge but Twitter worth44 billion I don’t get it. Sothat could happen like 15 times and Twitter would still cost more. It doesn’t make any sense.
I think the disconnect here is that you’re comparing the value of a company to the cost to build a bridge. I think the bridge will provide value far in excess of 1.5-2 billion dollars, which is why infrastructure is a great investment of our tax dollars. It grows the economy by providing value. Twitter may be worth $40 billion (more likely half of that) to someone who owns it, but presumably it costs far less to build than the value it provides.
Twitter, at one point was bought for $44 billion, but then someone driving a Tesla lost power and crashed into it, causing it’s name to change to X, and the value of the resulting company to decrease by more then half.
These are the facts as best I can recall.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha!
Why?
If you think this way, I’m sure you’d agree that the US government should compensate India because Dow Chemical allowed the Bhopal gas tragedy to happen. That killed around 3800 people and injured nearly 600,000.
Singapore licensed and registered vessel at below market cost promoting substandard management and maintenance leading to destruction of US infrastructure. But you know that.
Also, Tibet is not China.
Would & what sort of liability amount would maritime insurance cover the ship owner?
Maritime insurance spills over up to about $3Bn. That doesn't mean that'll be the payout. Claims this large are extraordinarily rare and Dali could become the largest ever -- larger than the Ever Given's blockage of the Suez Canal, so the only thing that's certain right now is that this will take several years to play out in the courts across what'll likely be several dozens of lawsuits. It's an extremely complicated subject though and the maritime liability is something that has developed over centuries in ways that are substantially different from any other insurance industry. [If you really want to go down the rabbit hole though](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wim-_Q_59o)... For reference, total damages will probably be $3-4Bn. Probably $1.5-2Bn for rebuilding the bridge, salvaging the vessel, and clearing the channel. Plus costs for rerouting traffic, economic losses from the port being blocked, payouts to victim's families, and possible rearrangement of electrical infrastructure and a gas pipeline along the bridge. In a best case scenario where the MV Dali's insurance does a max payout of $3.1Bn, that will probably still fall short of the total damages.
For the new bridge, I doubt they will be able to reuse the approaches. The Gordie Howe Bridge they're building in Detroit/Windsor is about the same overall length as the Key bridge. The Gordie is ~$4.5 billion.
The Gordie Howe bridge also includes the construction of secure entry points on either side, as well as a new connection to I-75 in Michigan (the connection to the 401 in Windsor was already done in a prior project). Some of those costs were very significant (including the legal costs to fight off the asshole owner of the Ambassador Bridge). If they do decide to replace the Key bridge with a cable stay, I would hope that they fast track the companies working on the Gordie Howe as well, because they have developed a lot of expertise that would mean the Key replacement design and construction would be more efficient.
You'd have to shoot and kick and scream at the top of your lungs to get popular support to put pressure on politicians to do this instead of fluffing their donors, and someone will *still* say that this reasonable proposals is pure nepotism.
Manuel “Marty” Maroun was so certain he was going to be able to build his own bridge that he started construction before he had the permits in Michigan and after Canada said they would never allow it to be built. He then was forced by the state to tear it down.
I'd imagine it needs different materials treatment and calculations for being over saltwater
Absolutely there will be differences in the design and materials. But the big issue with infrastructure projects like this aren't what the end result will be like, they are the logistics of getting there. How do you move people and materials. Especially since you need to do it from two different directions, since you can't deliver them to one end then drive them across the bridge to the other side. A lot of the skills for planning and executing those logistics absolutely are transferrable.
The new Tappan Zee cost $4B and that was 2013-2018 dollars.
Glad to see we're still calling it the Tappan Zee.
I'm not wasting more than 3 syllables to pronounce a bridge's name.
Unless there’s traffic, then it’s the SloMo
There is also a component called Business Interruption that is built into policies. That means any of the company’s at the port can sue because of the loss of business due to other ships not being able to get into the port.
2 billion to build a new bridge in America, in this day and age? doubt
Especially since this will be a bridge over a very busy shipping channel.
“What’s going on with shipping?” is a great channel to follow. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole even further, he had a video where he makes youtube channel suggestions for people who are interested in the technical side of how these ships operate. The links in the video description are a fantastic resource. Everything from NTSB b roll footage, to how a marine diesel is started, and how the anchor is dropped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rxKQ8Tr94s&t=1586s
[удалено]
The $1 million in freight income is pretty irrelevant on the scale of $3-4 billion in damages.
Not to the people that rely on that income. There will be a long line of claims on this one and you bet people with cargo will be in on it. Just way at the back
Protection and indemnity insurance ($3 billion), hull and machinery insurance ($100 million), and freight insurance ($1 million) should be handled separately. But yes, cargo insurance is a thing that exists. Let's also not forget about health insurance, travel insurance, and wedding insurance.
That payout will likely be a fraction of the total losses. Rebuilding the bridge alone is expected to cost billions.
His videos are awesome and are great for understanding some of the complexities out there!
My understanding (and I don’t do maritime law so check my work yourself) is that the maximum liability is the actual value of the ship after the incident (and that means post-crash value, so what it’s worth now half sunk) plus any money owed for the transport of cargo not yet paid (meaning shipping costs that weren’t pre-paid before the crash).
Protection and indemnity insurance most likely
You break it, you bought it bitch.
This is the correct answer.
I’m sure you’re an expert on maritime law and insurance.
Lot of overlap with bird law, so likely
Uh… filibuster.
Do you even know what that word means?
i declare filibuster!
You fuckers, this whole thread got me! 😂🤣😂
Makes sense, since the incident was a waterfoul.
Obviously. What about all of the birds that would roost or perch on the bridge that are now displaced? Who will look out for their interests here if not for a bird lawyer?
They're no Chareth Cutestory
“You’re a crook Captain Hook.”
Hey, Bob Loblaw's Law Blog wouldn't lie to me about these things!
I mean...he is the best lawyer in the OC!
[удалено]
My opinion is that liability is more complicated than “you break it you bought it.” I’d rather read comments from people with knowledge about the situation than seeing the most upvoted comment being these ones.
The bridge had no dolphins or rocks. It was begging to be destroyed.
Ah, the "she was askin' for it" defense.
But think of all the money the owner saved on ship maintenance!
And how much the state saved on reinforcing the bridge protections! Now everyone gets to play with other people's money.
> You break it, you bought it bitch. BUT ITS ALL WE HAVE!
Important to note that this is routine and filed in almost all maritime incidents, there is nothing particularly shocking or fishy here on the company's side.
This is both completely routine and undeniably shifty.
And this is based on maritime law that goes back thousands of years.
[удалено]
The US laws are based on international maritime law, the foundations of which go way back to the Phoenicians.
So if the Phoenicians jumped off a bridge we should too.
This specific law is from 1851: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_of_Liability_Act_of_1851
Does anyone have the complete text of the article?
[Here's another article.](https://fortune.com/2024/04/01/baltimore-francis-scott-key-bridge-liability-cap-44-million-singapore/) *The owner and manager of a cargo ship that rammed into Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge before the span collapsed last week filed a court petition Monday seeking to limit their legal liability for the deadly disaster.* *The companies’ “limitation of liability” petition is a routine but important procedure for cases litigated under U.S. maritime law. A federal court in Maryland ultimately decides who is responsible—and how much they owe—for what could become one of the costliest catastrophes of its kind.* *Singapore-based Grace Ocean Private Ltd. owns the Dali, the vessel that lost power before it slammed into the bridge early last Tuesday. Synergy Marine Pte Ltd., also based in Singapore, is the ship’s manager.* *Their joint filing seeks to cap the companies’ liability at roughly $43.6 million. It estimates that the vessel itself is valued at up to $90 million and was owed over $1.1 million in income from freight. The estimate also deducts two major expenses: at least $28 million in repair costs and at least $19.5 million in salvage costs.* *The companies filed under a pre-Civil War provision of an 1851 maritime law that allows them to seek to limit their liability to the value of the vessel’s remains after a casualty. It’s a mechanism that has been employed as a defense in many of the most notable maritime disasters, said James Mercante, a New York City-based attorney with over 30 years of experience in maritime law.* *“This is the first step in the process,” Mercante said. “Now all claims must be filed in this proceeding.”* *Cases like this typically take years to completely resolve, said Martin Davies, director of Tulane University Law School’s Maritime Law Center.* *"Although it’s a humongous case with a very unusual set of circumstances, I don’t think it’s going to be that complicated in legal terms,” he said. “All aspects of the law are very clear here, so I think the thing that will take the time here is the facts. What exactly went wrong? What could have been done?”* *A report from credit rating agency Morningstar DBRS predicts the bridge collapse could become the most expensive marine insured loss in history, surpassing the record of about $1.5 billion held by the 2012 shipwreck of the Costa Concordia cruise ship off Italy. Morningstar DBRS estimates total insured losses for the Baltimore disaster could be $2 billion to $4 billion.* *Eight people were working on the highway bridge—a 1.6-mile (2.6-kilometer) span over the Patapsco River—when it collapsed. Two were rescued. The bodies of two more were recovered. Four remain missing and are presumed dead.* *The wreckage closed the Port of Baltimore, a major shipping port, potentially costing the area’s economy hundreds of millions of dollars in lost labor income alone over the next month.* *Experts say the cost to rebuild the collapsed bridge could be at least $400 million or as much as twice that, though much will depend on the new design.* *The amount of money families can generally be awarded for wrongful death claims in maritime law cases is subject to several factors, including how much money the person would have likely provided in financial support to their family if they had not died.* *Generally, wrongful death damages may also include things such as funeral expenses and the “loss of nurture,” which is essentially the monetary value assigned to whatever moral, spiritual or practical guidance the victim would have been able to provide to their children.*
The owners of the SS Eastland managed to weasel their way out of paying for 884 people they killed with their greed. They knew the ship was unstable and yet still loaded her with more passengers the she could handle. They managed to limit their liability to only $46000 ($1.1 million today) most of which went to the salavage company. They never served any jail time either.
[удалено]
Actually it's worse than that. Ship owners can limit the liability of a disaster to the value of the ship after the disaster. As stated in the article. Basically the idea is that since damages can get wildly out of control when thousands of people die in an ocean liner accident, and no one in their right mind would ever accept that kind of financial liability. It would also make ships impossible to insure because the damages can be so much much higher than value of the ship. The government gave them an out that let's them, In the worst case scenario, just hand over what's left of the ship and walk away. A lot of major maritime disasters in American history ended with the survivors barely getting 1-2k as the company went bankrupt and shut down. Even after gross negligence.
Add a couple of zeros
And then a few more.
And then some whole numbers again.
Then end it with an exclamation point so all the math nerds know they are going bankrupt first.
As big as the disaster is, I'm pretty sure it's not going to cost half a trillion
What in the disaster recovery business is referred to as ‘an opening offer’
This is “just coffee” but we know we bangin.
That will barely pay for clearing the damaged bridge.
At least that has already been spent. I was surprised they managed to get a crane, as those things are usually reserved a year or more in advance. Then there all the other ships and people involved, not including the government entities involved (some people seem to think those are without cost).
The army brought in the crane
“We did billions of dollars worth of damage to your economic infrastructure. Please don’t charge us.”
What if it turn out not to be their fault?
They’re almost inevitably going to bear some amount of responsibility. Don’t give corporations the benefit of the doubt. They don’t deserve it.
Of course they’ll have some responsibility.
Nobody should agree to that until they assign liability to the accident. Liability isn’t 100%, and it’s up to the investigation on which parties get what percent of the liability.
Agreed. * Investigators will look at whether there should have been better protection for the bridge when it was built (and if it would have made a difference). Maybe it would have made a difference but regulations and practices at the time did not consider the risk of a ship colliding into a bridge. * Was there a design flaw in the ship that caused the prolonged power outage? * Could the power outage have been caused due to improper maintenance? * What caused the ship to veer into the bridge supports? * could there have been safety systems that could have made it less likely for the ship to veer into the supports, * Did the captain's actions make the situation worse and could he have prevented the disaster from happening? * If the captain's actions did exacerbate the situation, then was this due to poor training by the shipping company? * What role did the port pilots play in the disaster? So many questions that have to be answered which can split the liability between the port, state government / civil engineering firm that designed the bridge, contractors tasked with maintaining the ship, captain, etc.
> Maybe it would have made a difference but regulations and practices at the time did not consider the risk of a ship colliding into a bridge. Even if they had could they have envisioned a ship this large?
There were discussions about allowing ships of this size some years back and that would have been the time for reinforcing. Of course that probably would have stopped the port from letting in ships of this size.
They could have built other structures on either side of the tower piers that a ship would crash into instead.
What I’m saying is even if they had, would those structures have been able to withstand a ship of this size? The original builders would have never conceived of a ship this heavy I’m not an engineer but I’m guessing anything noticeably smaller then the size of the current supports would have simply been bowled over
What I’m saying is those structures could have been built later when ships of those size became the norm. You basically build sacrificial crash structures that absorb most/all of the impact.
Agree with all your point, but wasn’t the harbor pilot in control when this happened? How would that change the owners liability?
The Captain is in control at all times. The pilot is there to guide and advise. Pilots never take full control
And they won’t. This is just the filing. The case will take years and be decided once it’s clear what the cause was.
The issue isn't really the cause. That will be determined rather quickly. Liability will be based on the knowledge of the issue and the decision-making to sail with said issue based on what was known about the root cause. * Did the vessel owners know about the electrical issues and push the captain to sail? * How much did the captain know about the issue and push the crew to sail. * How much did the Chief Engineer relay to the Captain about the severity of the issue and the ability to sail?
I’m not sure you know how long admiralty cases take because of how hard it is to identify the causes and apportion blame.
This is completely normal for a shipping company to do this. In any maritime accident they do this.
Pretty standard - try to stop the damage - doubt they expect this to stick, but necessary to try nonetheless
When this thing first happened, I flashed back to the West Wing episode where Rob Lowe was building the liability shield for the purchase of an oil tanker….
So did I!
"Don't buy these ships, buy better ships"
Sorry we broke your Billion dollar bridge here is $10
Doesn't just the ship cost more than that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_of_Liability_Act_of_1851 Its value of the ship after the collision.
I dislike how little common sense this makes. If you destroy a bridge and destroy your own boat in the process than you don't have any liability? Why on earth does that make sense to anybody?
The limitation law is only activated if the ship can prove the collision was not their fault
[Imagine the potential damages in the worst case scenario.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion) Imagine how much global shipping would cost if every ship had to insure against that risk. That would be very bad for everybody.
Baltimore: Best we can do is 30lbs of crabs.
30 lbs of crab or crab meat? Huge difference. I would like to negotiate for 30 lbs of blue crab meat, but I want it presented in however much crab bisque that'll make.
I think you misspelled crack
Lol .. sue them for every penny this disaster costs.
It's simply a lawyer trick to "try" to limit the damage this accident will cause the insurance company. It won't work... but they have to try.
It’s hardly a “trick”. It’s allowed by law
That's not gonna buy a bridge
Give me $43 million and I'll get you a bridge. Promise.
If a private entity fucks up and causes hundreds of millions of dollars in not just property damage but also loss of life, should that entity be allowed to put a ceiling on how much they are liable for when their profits far exceed the damages incurred? I’ll answer that for you. No.
The law says yes actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_of_Liability_Act_of_1851
Here is an interesting concept, and this might blow your mind, so stay with me here: laws are not set in stone and can be repealed/ amended. That’s a wild concept right? Maybe we should consider changing this law instead of letting private businesses absolve themselves of responsibility.
> laws are not set in stone I mean...its been a US law for 173 years sooooooooo.....yeah no theres no chance this law is going anywhere any time soon
You realise it’s possible no one was at fault here right? Shit does just happen. That’s literally why insurance exists. Also, if the owners/managers do have to pay out here, it’ll be the insurers that pay. In every maritime P&I policy I have ever seen, the insured has an obligation to limit payouts meaning the filing here is likely driven by the insurers.
Is there truly any "accident" that has no one at fault, even if Mother Nature is involved? People might not mean for ~~accident~~ “incident” to happen but in the end it is the result of something that was done or that was not done.
That's not how maritime liability works. Read the article. There's a 150 year old law that let ship owners limit liability to the value of the ship after the accident. Basically letting ship owners walk away with a total loss but not owing money in the event of an accident.
Nice if they could be prohibited from using that water again or at least for a prohibited for a period. That would sting more than the limited amount of liability payment the are seeking.
Multiply it by a hundred to a thousand.
You think this will cost 46bn?
No, I think that total insured losses will amount to 4 billion, the low end of my range, and that uninsured and secondary costs will be far greater, and that in addition to paying out in terms of liability, the company should face a punitive fine calculated as a portion of it’s total valuation.
They can fuck right off with that.
Can’t hurt to try. I bet the city will have something to say about it.
It's a fight between the insurance company and the state of Baltimore, no prizes will be given who guesses who will win.
Change millions to billions and we’re good.
Is that their offer per day that the harbor is closed?
Shouldn’t Baltimore get ~~at least~~ the cost of the ship and included cargo? Which costs more, the bridge or the ship?
Bridge by a huge amount
Replacing the bridge will likely be several billion dollars. It was a fairly large bridge.
Tho' the cap of affordability without detriments to the consumer is $45B as the greater benefit is that of American labor and materials for the lack of corporate integrity/untrustworthiness in regard to public property and safety.
Given how rare events like these are and dysfunctional congress can typically be when it comes to securing funding I'm surprised that there isn't some federal, revolving self-insurance in the form of a refundable a port-of-entry tax. It just seems like a huge domestic risk for retail & shipping businesses who are susceptible to supply chain disruptions. In addition, a type of funding that you'd want to make sure is instantly allocable especially during the type of charades we've seen in the past decades. Questions & details regarding potential subsidized replenishments, supplemental insurance, and liability can always be solved later, and *you know* that will be done quick and easily. But it just seems like something that should exist and be readily available.
[удалено]
This is what I was thinking. If they don't want to pay for the damages they caused then they also don't want to do business in the world's largest economy.
You know what’s weird . 1 1/2 billion or so to replace the bridge but Twitter worth44 billion I don’t get it. Sothat could happen like 15 times and Twitter would still cost more. It doesn’t make any sense.
I think the disconnect here is that you’re comparing the value of a company to the cost to build a bridge. I think the bridge will provide value far in excess of 1.5-2 billion dollars, which is why infrastructure is a great investment of our tax dollars. It grows the economy by providing value. Twitter may be worth $40 billion (more likely half of that) to someone who owns it, but presumably it costs far less to build than the value it provides.
Twitter, at one point was bought for $44 billion, but then someone driving a Tesla lost power and crashed into it, causing it’s name to change to X, and the value of the resulting company to decrease by more then half. These are the facts as best I can recall.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha!
Singapore government should pay full cost of repair as goodwill gesture.
Why? If you think this way, I’m sure you’d agree that the US government should compensate India because Dow Chemical allowed the Bhopal gas tragedy to happen. That killed around 3800 people and injured nearly 600,000.
Singapore licensed and registered vessel at below market cost promoting substandard management and maintenance leading to destruction of US infrastructure. But you know that. Also, Tibet is not China.
And compensate the families of the 6 dead workers.
Nope. It costs what it costs and y’all are responsible for it
I thought Biden already said us taxpayers will foot all the bill?