Court Rules State Has 30 Days to Amend Lawsuit on Washington Bridge

GoLocalProv Business Team

Court Rules State Has 30 Days to Amend Lawsuit on Washington Bridge

RIDOT Director Peter Alviti and Governor Dan McKee PHOTO: GoLocal
The high-profile lawsuit by the State of Rhode Island against 13 contractors and entities for their role in the failure of the Washington Bridge hit a hurdle today.

The 41-page decision handed down on Thursday afternoon by Superior Court Judge Brian Stern allows the case to move forward but shifts significant legal burden to the State to provide more information on the tort claims before the court.  A tort claim is a legal claim to recover damages for injuries caused by another party's actions or omissions.

The defendant’s motion to dismiss failed, but now the state has just 30 days to revamp its case.

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

 

Stern writes:

“Where there are damages in the construction context between commercial entities, the economic loss doctrine will bar any tort claims for purely economic damages.’ ’In such a context, a party who is  injured must resort to contract law for recovery.’   The “rationale for abiding by the economic loss doctrine centers on the notion that commercial transactions are more appropriately suited to resolution through the law of contract than through the law of tort.”

Superior Court Judge Brian Stern
Further, Stern rejected the claim by the Attorney General Peter Neronha that there was an exception to the so-called ‘economic loss doctrine, “This Court declined to create a sovereign exception to the economic loss doctrine because the State acted as a business entity and no discrepancy in bargaining power existed between the State and the Defendants. The State fails to point to any case law supporting a sovereign exception,” wrote Stern.

“The State asserts that, although it has not pled negligent misrepresentation, the allegations in the Complaint are sufficient to put Defendants AECOM and the Joint Venture on notice of a claim of negligent misrepresentation. The Court has already permitted the State to amend its Complaint; therefore, if it has a claim for negligent misrepresentation, it may add a count in the amendment. To say more would be to paint the lily,” added Stern and quoting the late federal court judge Bruce Selya with the use of “paint the lily.”

The State’s contract violations can go forward, but the decision issued today on the motions to dismiss the case was a victory in the short-term, it is a clear message to the attorney general and the other attorneys for the state that the burden is soundly on them and they have 30 days to revamp the argument.

 

Attorney Max Wistow quit the state's case against the contractors PHOTO: GoLocal
The Genesis of the Lawsuit

In August of 2024, the legal teams of Max Wistow and Jonathan Savage of Savage Law filed a lawsuit against 13 companies that have provided design, construction, and inspection services to the State related to the Washington Bridge.

The lawsuit seeks to hold accountable the companies responsible for the near-miss catastrophic closure of the bridge and to recover the significant resources required to rebuild the bridge and compensate the State. However, the companies argued that they had acted at the direction of RIDOT.

And, just a few months later, Wistow -- who had recovered approximately $100 million in the 38 Studios lawsuits on behalf of the state and the St. Joseph pension fund failure -- quit representing the state. He was replaced by an out-of-state firm.


Washington Bridge Failure Timeline

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.