How Exxon Valdez law could sway the damages awarded in Baltimore bridge legal battle

Types : In the News

Government brings oil spill law into container ship case, while another claim turns to environmental rule to skirt around

When the US government filed a claim in the legal battle over the deadly container ship casualty that destroyed a bridge in Baltimore, a small portion of its $103m claim was based on the law passed in response to the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

And whether that law comes into play could have an impact on how much of the economic damage from the incident can be brought into the litigation, for which claims were due on Tuesday.

What does one of America’s most notorious oil spills have to do with the 9,962-teu container ship Dali (built 2015)?

After all, the dispute does not centre on an oil spill but rather a ship hitting a bridge, which crumbled into the Patapsco River in March, killing six construction workers. Until now, oil discharge has not been a major point of discussion in the incident.But US Justice Department lawyers said the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 — which maritime legal experts often refer to as OPA 90 — comes into play whenever there is a “substantial threat” of oil pollution.

The lawyers said the US Coast Guard deployed resources to respond to that threat of pollution, as well as to contain a sheen that was observed.

The bunker fuel on the Dali was not the only risk; there was also a natural gas pipeline submerged in the river and power lines that contained dielectric fluids.

The Coast Guard’s alleged Oil Pollution Act liabilities add up to just $97,300, according to the legal filing.

But the introduction of the 1990 law may have a ripple effect in the litigation, which started when Dali owner Grace Ocean and manager Synergy Marine filed a petition with a US federal court in Baltimore to limit their liability at $44m.

Robert O’Connor, a lawyer with Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads who is experienced in complex marine casualty cases, highlighted the claim under OPA 90 because it has a different approach to liability from a 1927 Supreme Court decision known as Robins Dry Dock.

“The inclusion of a count under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is significant because — unlike the Robins Dry Dock doctrine — OPA 90 allows recovery of economic damages,” he said on LinkedIn.