PROVIDENCE — A judge on Thursday refused to toss out breach of contract claims in a lawsuit the state of Rhode Island filed against firms involved in the construction or inspection of the Washington Bridge’s failed westbound span.
But the judge indicated he might dismiss claims alleging negligence unless the state can show property damage other than the Washington Bridge itself.
“This is an important, and overall positive, development in the case,” said Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, who is representing the state. “Our most important claims, including every breach of contract claim, can move forward.”
Neronha said his office will continue reviewing the opinion, particularly regarding the negligence claims.
“The emergency closure of the Washington Bridge caused the state substantial economic harm, not to mention the terrible inconvenience and hardships experienced by countless Rhode Islanders,” he said. “We will continue to seek accountability from the responsible parties, while attempting to recover the maximum amount possible for the state.”
In his 41-page decision, state Superior Court Judge Brian P. Stern acknowledged the major problems and lost business resulting from the December 2023 closure of the Washington Bridge’s westbound span, which carried Interstate 195 over the Seekonk River between East Providence and Providence. The bridge was shut down because of a critical failure of some original bridge components from the 1960s.
After months of detours and delays, the state determined that the bridge needed to be demolished and replaced. The contractor for that work, which is expected to cost upwards of $300 million, will be selected on June 6.
The state had accused the defendants — entities that had been involved with the bridge’s maintenance and construction prior to the sudden closure — of failing to find the issues that led to the bridge’s emergency closure.
The defendants had asked the judge to toss out breach of contract claims made by the state, arguing that the state failed to cite to a specific contractual provision that they allegedly failed to perform and “is not entitled to a new bridge simply because an inspection failed to identify a deteriorated structural element that would have needed repairs anyways.”
On Thursday, the judge ruled that he must assume all allegations are true and resolve any doubts in the state’s favor.
“The court acknowledges that this is a close call, but this near tie goes to the plaintiff,” Stern wrote, adding that it’s conceivable the engineering firms breached an “express or implied promise” in their contracts by failing to address the bridge’s many problems.
“Even without a specific contractual provision, the state’s allegations clearly show that the defendants, allegedly, failed to properly notify the state that there were issues with the bridge that would soon result in the emergency closure,” Stern wrote.
Stern noted that his decision is limited to the allegations in the state’s lawsuit, and he was not ruling on the merits of any claims.
Stern also noted that he needed more information in order to consider whether to toss out the state’s negligence claims against the defendants. Under the “economic loss doctrine,” the state cannot recover damages under a negligence claim if there’s “no personal injury or property damage” and if the damages are purely economic.
In the lawsuit, one of the defendants, AECOM, a consulting firm, argues there is no claim that the alleged negligence caused any injuries or property damage. Instead, the company argues that the state is trying to recoup the cost of replacing the Washington Bridge, and that is “a purely economic injury.”
The state argues the economic loss doctrine does not apply in this situation because it is “a sovereign entity,” not a commercial entity, and that the lawsuit stems from the state’s role “as a steward of public resources performing an essential public function of maintaining the Washington Bridge.” Also, the state said the alleged conduct of the defendants “created a public safety hazard” resulting in the bridge closure.
But Stern said he would not “create a sovereign exception” to the economic loss doctrine because the state acted as a business entity. And he said he would not “create a public safety exception” applicable to the Washington Bridge.
Stern said the state’s lawsuit alleges “property damage” without explaining what property is damaged. If that property is the Washington Bridge itself, then the negligence claims would be barred by the economic loss doctrine, he said.
But if the state can show damage to other property, then claims could be pursued in court, he said. So the judge gave the state 30 days to spell out what property has been damaged.
Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at edward.fitzpatrick@globe.com. Follow him @FitzProv.