IN SEPTEMBER 1814, a Baltimore lawyer watched the beleaguered defenders of Fort McHenry raise the American flag in defiance of a British naval bombardment and was moved to pen a poem called The Star-Spangled Banner.

More than a century later, Francis Scott Key’s stirring patriotic paean was formally adopted as the lyrics to the national anthem of the land of the free and the home of the brave. Some 158 years after the event, a bridge spanning the Patapsco river was named in his honour.

And then, last week, a Singapore-flagged boxship lost power and allided with the structure, bringing the whole thing down in seconds.

The death toll had not been confirmed at the time of writing, but it is feared that six construction workers lost their lives in consequence. Their families and friends are in everyone’s thoughts.

Praise should also be unstinting for the local police, emergency services and the medical professionals who attended to the injured, as well as those who partially reopened a channel to the port in a matter of days. But things will not be back to normal for some time yet.

Meanwhile salvors from Resolve Marine have begun the intricate task of disentangling steel girders from the damaged hull of Dali (IMO: 9697428), while loss adjusters retained by claims consultants are already on the case.

Reacting with inevitable alacrity, the White House has pledged to fund the rebuilding of the bridge, which is obviously the only feasible political line to take in an election year.

But the phraseology is misleading; ultimately our industry will refund the money to the American taxpayer through our collective contributions to marine insurance. This is what P&I is there for.

The Francis Scott Key Bridge cost $60m to build in the 1970s, which equates to about $300m in 2024 dollars. But construction inflation has risen faster than consumer price inflation, and with the increased size of vessels over the intervening five decades, there is a case for higher specs this time round.

Lowball estimates from civil engineering experts put the price of a new bridge at $400m-$600m. Some are suggesting higher.

In the first instance, the bill will land with Chubb, the giant property insurance multinational, in its capacity as primary insurer. Rather than freely shell out hundreds of millions of dollars, Chubb will almost certainly seek to recover its outlays from the vessel’s liability insurers, namely Britannia P&I Club for the first small $10m layer and ultimately the wider International Group and the reinsurance market. This process is known as ‘subrogation’ in sector jargon and is standard practice.

Not due to any fault

Now for the fun part. Dali’s owner and manager, Singaporean entities Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine, have protected their interests by filing a court petition denying any liability whatsoever.

“The casualty was not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care on the part of petitioners, the vessel, or any persons or entities for whose acts petitioners may be responsible,” the document boldly urges.

That stance is more than a bit cheeky. Journalists from many leading US broadcasters and newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post that have tapped Lloyd’s List’s expertise on marine insurance matters have been aghast at the prospect, sometimes unprintably so.

Nobody — probably least of all Grace Ocean and Synergy — seriously expects the contention to prevail. Even those companies’ lawyers have been careful to set out a fallback position that liability should be capped at just under $44m.

Even that limitation is modest in the context. The most likely outcome now is years of protracted courtroom battles, with judges guided in the first instance by the findings of preliminary investigations by the US National Transportation Safety Board, which could come as soon as next week.

While bridge replacement will be the largest single element for insurers to contend with, there are hundreds of millions of dollars more at stake. This includes sizeable loss of life and personal injury claims, which in fairness nobody should begrudge.

There will be salvage costs, which could go to general average, generating further litigation involving thousands of parties. There will be cargo and delay claims, and Baltimore businesses will feel entitled to compensation for operational interruption.

When all is said and done, marine insurers have exposure here that will easily top a $1bn and could come in far higher, in what will be the biggest hit since Ever Given (IMO: 9811000).

Despite the inevitable controversy, the principle of limited liability — which shipowners have enjoyed since the 19th century — is a good one. Without it, few people would willingly take the risks involved in seafaring.

However unpopular the idea might be with those that do not understand our industry, which is to say the vast majority of the population, it is important to defend it.

There is a further twist here. In most countries, this right is governed by the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976.

But the US has opted for exceptionalism and handles such matters through domestic legislation, with a wording some critics regard as antiquated and not as rigorous as the convention.

All these aspects are for the US legal system to decide. Past precedent — notably the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion in 2010 — suggests the process will take years and provide a reliable earner for shipping law firms, including British ones.

Lloyd’s List was already a long-established print publication in Francis Scott Key’s day, and although the archive from the period is sadly lost, will no doubt have reported on what history knows as the War of 1812 and its implications for marine underwriters.

The current echoes of that distant conflict in the present day could not have been anticipated. But this time, Britain and the US are on the same side.