AECOM, Aetna, Barletta and Others File Motions to Dismiss Washington Bridge Lawsuit

GoLocalProv News Team

AECOM, Aetna, Barletta and Others File Motions to Dismiss Washington Bridge Lawsuit

L-R McKee's chief of staff Antonio Afonso and Governor Dan McKee announcing that attorneys were being hired to pursue legal action PHOTO: GoLocal
Multiple companies, now being sued by the State of Rhode Island for their alleged roles in the failure of the Washington Bridge, have filed motions to have much or all of the case thrown out.

The state sued 13 entities on August 16, 2024.

The motions were filed with the court on Thursday and earlier today, Friday. The case is now before Superior Court Judge Brian Stern.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Aetna Bridge, the contractor being sued for its role in the failure and has been awarded more than $90 million in contracts and change orders to demolish the bridge, is one of the parties asking for legal action by the state against them to be dismissed.

In addition, Barletta Heavy Division, who is under indictment by the State of Rhode Island in the 6/10 Contamination case, is also seeking dismissal.

Also, among the defendants moving to dismiss the case is the global transportation firm AECOM.

AECOM, in its filing, states, “Defendant AECOM, like the 12 other defendants the State named in its Complaint, was one of several companies that performed services relating to the Washington Bridge over the prior several decades. AECOM’s services in relation to the Washington Bridge primarily consisted of providing design services and serving as an “Owner’s Representative” in connection with Rhode Island Department of Transportation’s (“RIDOT”) proposed design-build rehabilitation projects intended to partially repair deterioration of the 50-year-old bridge; and (2) periodically performing routine or special inspections of the bridge per specifications and upon request by the RIDOT, in rotation with RIDOT’s other bridge inspection contractors who are also named as Defendants in the Complaint. Importantly, AECOM did not perform any physical work on the bridge at any point in time and AECOM did not have any responsibility to maintain or physically repair the bridge. All of AECOM’s services were either design or contract administration of the wholly separate contractors the State engaged to perform rehabilitation and maintenance of the bridge at various points in time.

Further, AECOM asserts in its motion that “Not only is the Complaint devoid of any allegation of physical damage to property, it also fails to allege how AECOM’s performance of its design and inspection services caused economic damage or physical damage to the Washington Bridge (a 50-year-old bridge that was under active rehabilitation when the aged and deteriorated tie-rods were discovered). Nor does the Complaint allege that AECOM caused personal injury. Again, it appears that the State is seeking to recover unspecified costs to demolish the existing bridge, and then to design and build an entirely new replacement bridge, without any attempt at pleading causation to any breach of contract, act or omission by the Defendants. Whatever the claimed measure of damages, however, such damages are not recoverable and AECOM is not liable therefore as a matter of law.”

The state's case is led by attorney Max Wistow. He referred questions to the Rhode Island Attorney General's office who did not respond at the time of the publication of the article.


Washington Bridge Failure Timeline

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.