Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Chetan A. Patil Delivers Remarks on the Justice Department’s Lawsuit Against the Owner and Operator of the Vessel that Destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge

Thank you, United States Attorney Barron. I am Chetan Patil, the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division’s Torts Branch. This morning, attorneys within the Civil Division filed a claim against Grace Ocean and Synergy, the owner and operator of the Motor Vessel DALI, to recover more than $100 million in federal taxpayer funds that were spent in responding to the tragic destruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. The suit also seeks punitive damages against these entities, who reaped the profits of conducting business in American ports but did so by engaging in reckless and grossly negligent conduct that led to this catastrophe.

Our investigation remains ongoing. Nevertheless, from what we have learned already, it is clear that this accident was completely avoidable. As we outline in our claim, the electrical and mechanical systems on the DALI were improperly configured and maintained in violation of safety regulations. These configurations caused the ship to lose power, which led to subsequent equipment failures, culminating in the DALI striking one of the piers of the Francis Scott Key Bridge and causing the bridge to collapse into the Fort McHenry Channel.

We believe that the ship initially lost power when the circuit breakers tripped at an electrical transformer in the engine room due to excessive vibration problems with the transformer and its circuitry. The evidence shows that excessive vibration was a long-standing problem on the ship, which Grace Ocean and Synergy sought to remedy with makeshift, after-market fixes that fell well short of appropriate standards. 

When this transformer failed, the power should have automatically shifted to another transformer almost immediately. But, per longstanding practice, this automation had been recklessly disabled, which led to excessive delay in regaining power. Then the ship’s emergency generator also failed. Even when the crew finally did manage to regain power, the DALI lost power a second time, likely because the vessel had been using an inadequate, temporary fuel pump that could not restart after a blackout. This was another legal safety requirement that the DALI failed to follow, in order to cut costs and save time.  

Because power could not be restored, there was no way to steer the ship. And problems with the DALI’s anchor and bow thruster thwarted even last-ditch emergency efforts to avert the disaster. In sum, this accident happened because of the careless and grossly negligent decisions made by Grace Ocean and Synergy, who recklessly chose to send an unseaworthy vessel to navigate a critical waterway and ignored the risks to American lives and the nation’s infrastructure. 

The United States’ claim seeks to hold Grace Ocean and Synergy responsible for the considerable costs they imposed on the federal government in responding to the disaster. Those costs include work relating to the removal of the DALI and the remnants of the Francis Scott Key Bridge from the Fort McHenry channel, in order to restore full access to the Port of Baltimore. In addition, we seek to recover the costs incurred to abate the substantial risk of oil pollution that could have resulted from this accident, as well as costs incurred by several federal agencies as a direct result of Grace Ocean and Synergy’s misconduct. We seek punitive damages here to deter Grace Ocean and Synergy — and other vessel owners and operators — from prioritizing profits over safety and thereby jeopardizing the waterways and well-being of Americans. And we will vigorously contest Grace Ocean and Synergy’s efforts to limit their liability to the woefully inadequate amount of $44 million, which finds no legal support under these circumstances.

While the United States remains committed to the reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, it is not seeking damages for those costs at this time. Rather, because the State of Maryland built, owned, maintained and operated the bridge, the State, not the United States, may seek recovery for the costs of rebuilding the bridge. Funds the State may recover in the litigation will be used to repay federal money spent to reconstruct the bridge and highway.

Finally, I want to thank the attorneys of the Aviation, Space & Admiralty Litigation Section of the Civil Division for their diligence and hard work since the day this accident occurred. Their efforts and professionalism are in the finest traditions of the department.