Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

mdd.uscourts.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 202 posts

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#51

Post by swores »

keepamovin wrote: post #43
swores wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, I fully believe the official statements that this crash was accidental - putting that up front to avoid seeming like I believe any of the nonsense conspiracy theories that came out about the accident. But if you were someone like Russia or Iran who wanted to financially hurt the US (or any other country - and, equally feasible for the CIA or Mossad or whomever to use it as tactic to financially harm any…

No, I completely believe this was just some mechanical Newtonian inadequacy that was accidental. However, I’ve never considered the possibility of sabotage, but now that you mention it holy fuck yes that must be a possible threat vector.

Other than hearing and dismissing a few people online suggesting this incident was an act of terrorism, I hadn't really thought further about it until your comment which made me go "oh... yeah, that does sound like it might be extremely feasible for a future attack, fuck."

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#52

Post by bilekas »

This is actually a really interesting case.

Hear me out, a little bit of devil's advocate maybe..

If insurance company is forced to repay the whole cost of the rebuild, estimated it will cost lets say $600M. Tax payer is happy they're not paying via Federal taxes. But, shipping and logistics insurance companies start to ramp up their premiums and those fees are passed on to, eventually, the consumer over the long term, this could end up costing the tax payer more ?

If the insurance company pays 40~M and the federal pay the rest.. The tax rates will not go up based on this 600M rebuild, and if they do, no goverment will want to keep those higher rates. I cannot say the same for a private insurance company not wanting to keep their fees high if they're being paid anyway.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#53

Post by keepamovin »

swores wrote: post #51
keepamovin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I completely believe this was just some mechanical Newtonian inadequacy that was accidental. However, I’ve never considered the possibility of sabotage, but now that you mention it holy fuck yes that must be a possible threat vector.

Other than hearing and dismissing a few people online suggesting this incident was an act of terrorism, I hadn't really thought further about it until your comment which made me go "oh... yeah, that does sound like it might be extremely feasible for a future attack, fuck."

Totes, man. It’s like slow moving rods from god kinetic weapons… next people will figure out how to weaponize glaciers

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#54

Post by palmfacehn »

rwmj wrote: post #27
buster3000 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the use of "flimsy contraption" and "first nudge" indicates your level of ignorance of the subject. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali#Description "Description Dali is a Neopanamax container ship[7] with an overall length of 299.92 metres (984 ft), beam of 48.2 metres (158 ft 2 in), moulded depth of 24.8 metres (81 ft 4 in), and summer draft of 15.03 metres (49…

This does raise the question of whether the new bridge will need to be larger and stronger. Will it need to be designed to withstand the hit from these new larger vessels?

>A notable example of dolphins used to protect a bridge is the Sunshine Skyway Bridge across the mouth of Tampa Bay. In 1980, the MV Summit Venture hit a pier on one of the bridge's two, two-lane spans causing a 1,200-foot (370 m) section of the bridge to fall into the water, resulting in 35 deaths. When a replacement span was designed, a top priority was to prevent ships from colliding with the new bridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)#To_protect...

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#55

Post by rich_sasha »

shiroiushi wrote: post #40
rkrzr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that the actual cost to rebuild the bridge will be far higher than that. Initial estimates of large public works projects are virtually always too low, and actual costs can easily be 5-10 times higher. There is a great book about this phenomenon (and how to avoid it) by Brent Flyvbjerg called "How Big Things Get Done".

Here in Tokyo, there's a relatively new bridge that's almost exactly the same length as the Key bridge in Baltimore, and was expressly designed to allow large ships to pass underneath: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Gate_Bridge By my calculations (using the yen cost in the wikipedia article and the JPY/USD conversion at the time), it cost about USD $1.1B, so a bit less than double this estimate. However, with th…

It probably needs to be earthquake-proof too, which maybe it doesn't in Baltimore.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#56

Post by proteal »

nashashmi wrote: post #19
jcarrano wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are insurance companies that insure insurers. At each lever there are solvency requirements.

Right. Base damage is covered by the first line insurer. The excess damage is covered by the backend insurer. Business is about managing loss. Nothing more. No further emotional support required.

What you are describing is true, but there is a lot of nuance to how reinsurance plays out in large insurance policy towers. If you build a stack of insurance policies that work together to create a large single policy limit, you typically won't see reinsurance directly in that tower. If "Westchester Insurance Company" is anywhere on that tower as a carrier (whether first line, known more commonly as a primary insurer, or above that as an excess carrier), they will cut your check in the event of a claim. The money will come from their bank account, as will all the other affected carriers in claim. They are what you would consider a traditional insurance company.

With that being said, Westchester may elect to purchase reinsurance to further reduce their risk. If they know the volatility of a policy is high or want to limit their potential losses, Westchester can buy a reinsurance policy to cover the long tail of their written policy. So if Westchester gets unlucky and has to pay into that long tail (ie an unforeseen mega catastrophe occurs and they are on the hook), they will then submit a claim to their reinsurance carrier who reimburses them on the backend. As a recipient of that policy payout, you will only ever see Westchester's names on the checks. Also, Westchester's parent company, Chubb, has a reinsurance treaty which basically helps protect them from any crazy one time loss. The reinsurance/retrocession market is fascinating! It truly is insurance policies all the way down.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#57

Post by undecisive »

buster3000 wrote: post #20
eastbound wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope not. I was irresponsible to let ships pass a dozen times a day through a flimsy contraption that could collapse at the first nudge. This risk was unacceptable. Unacceptable! The people of Baltimore have benefited for years of a port facility literally downtown, which is practically the same thing as building houses in a flood zone. Should have never been permitted! I hope “We The People” accepts the responsibi…

the use of "flimsy contraption" and "first nudge" indicates your level of ignorance of the subject. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali#Description "Description Dali is a Neopanamax container ship[7] with an overall length of 299.92 metres (984 ft), beam of 48.2 metres (158 ft 2 in), moulded depth of 24.8 metres (81 ft 4 in), and summer draft of 15.03 metres (49…

As is often the case, the truth is far more complicated.

Firstly, the bridge - while up to code - did not have the kinds of buffers that could have been installed, or arguably should have been installed [1]

It isn't wrong to say that if you are going to authorise large container ships, if you are going to profit from large container ships as a harbour, and you are not going to invest properly in the infrastructure, you should take some of the blame when things inevitably go wrong. I don't know whether such buffers would have entirely saved the bridge or the people on it.

It also isn't wrong to say that if you are operating a large container ship, you should ensure it has failsafes in case of power failure. I don't know what failsafes exist (emergency anchors? Some kind of manual rudder?) that would be effective on a ship that large.

It also isn't wrong to say that given the public outcry, a scapegoat will likely be chosen, and it's more likely that they will scapegoat the foreigners rather than blame the politicians in charge of public spending.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/26/baltimore-br...

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#58

Post by gbil »

noisy_boy wrote: post #45
nashashmi wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no fault neglect or want of care. The engine failed. The ship was out of control. It was not bad maneuvering. It was not sleeping on the wheel. It was not want of care (it was piloted by a harbor pilot).

A bit premature to declare so, don't you think? What if it comes out that corners were cut regarding engine maintenance or something along those lines?

exactly, is there already an official verdict sourcing from official investigation? I don't think so Furthermore, the engine is part of the vessel, if the verdict is that the engine failed then the vessel owner/insurance can claim any penalties(plus extras) from the engine manufacturer

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#60

Post by alangibson »

bilekas wrote: post #52

This is actually a really interesting case. Hear me out, a little bit of devil's advocate maybe.. If insurance company is forced to repay the whole cost of the rebuild, estimated it will cost lets say $600M. Tax payer is happy they're not paying via Federal taxes. But, shipping and logistics insurance companies start to ramp up their premiums and those fees are passed on to, eventually, the consumer over the long ter…

Some form of this "but what about the consumer" argument is rolled out every time a corporation screws up. It's an incredibly effective way of deflecting responsibility by claiming to be acting in someone else's interest.

My rebuttal is "moral hazard." Why should Boeing bother making planes that stay in the air if they can always count on a slap on the wrist and, in the worst case, a bailout.

Post reply on HN