Trial over Key Bridge collapse likely to begin in early 2026, judge says

Listen to this article

The first trial over the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse is likely to begin in early 2026, U.S. District Court Judge James K. Bredar said at a hearing Tuesday.

The trial, which would follow a lengthy discovery process and related motions covering most of next year, would likely be limited to the request by the owner and manager of the Dali, the ship that crashed into the bridge, to have their liability limited to $43 million.

Bredar said he would issue a scheduling order within a few days, and appeared to prefer a timeline more in line with what the claimants had proposed.

“My issue is about getting this to the launching pad for settlement,” Bredar said.

RELATED: Baltimore area traffic remains affected by Key Bridge collapse

The joint status conference Tuesday came less than a week after last week’s announcement that Grace Ocean Private Ltd. and Synergy Marine Pte. Ltd, the owner and operator of the Dali, agreed to pay $102 million to the federal government for costs associated with the response to the collapse, a settlement reached about a month after the Department of Justice sued in September.

In a joint status report filed last week, the claimants proposed to begin the trial in December 2025, whereas Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine proposed a trial beginning in January 2027 about questions they say can’t be separated from their request for exoneration from or limitation of liability.

The claimants include a group of 45 entities, including the state of Maryland, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, BGE, insurance companies, the families of the six workers who died, owners of cargo and more. They say they can’t negotiate settlements until Bredar rules on their liability limitation request, because of the “delta” between their proposed $43 million cap and the estimated cost of rebuilding the bridge, which could exceed $2 billion.

Baltimore’s Key Bridge destroyed: Everything you need to know

The claimants say Bredar shouldn’t consider unnecessary questions, and that after he rules on the exoneration and limitation issue, many parties would bring claims in state courts; a lawyer for Baltimore City, for example, said the city wants to negotiate in Baltimore City Circuit Court.

“Staging the litigation in this manner makes good practical sense, particularly given that many claimants may choose to proceed before other courts upon resolution of the exoneration and limitation issues,” they wrote in the Oct. 22 joint status report.

“Holding the personal injury and wrongful death claimants, the United States, and property damage claimants hostage while Petitioners argue over collateral and unnecessary issues is neither efficient nor equitable.”

Daniel Rose, a lawyer representing clients who are bringing wrongful death and personal injury claims, said it would be impossible to negotiate a settlement “with the hammer of limitation of liability over our heads.”

Adam Levitt, arguing for Baltimore City, echoed Rose, saying the decision “really dictates what happens next.”

The claimants’ proposal would have a second trial starting about a year and a half after Bredar rules in the first trial.

William Bennett, representing the Dali owner and operator, argued the federal court should retain control of the case, in order to prevent the “absolute chaos” that would ensue if claims were brought in state courts.

The petitioners also argued for a “parallel” discovery phase, as they claim third parties may be partially liable.

Those parties include the state, which they argue “failed to take appropriate steps to protect the bridge from such contact;” Hyundai Heavy Industries, which manufactured the Dali and may have been responsible for a critical loose wire; and Brawner Builders, the employer of the workers who died, which they suggest failed to “equip its employees to receive prompt warning and/or evacuation assistance in the event of an emergency on the bridge.”

“Indeed,” they wrote in the status report, “the issues are inextricably intertwined, and it would be highly prejudicial to (us) to conduct a trial on issues relating to (our) own liability without also considering the roles that the State of Maryland and/or third parties such as HHI and Brawner may have played in the casualty.”

Bredar said the claim that the parties could negotiate settlements without knowing the extent of the companies’ liability “strains credulity.”