Skanska USA wants to throw out more than 300 Hurricane Sally lawsuits using a 1927 case

Three Escambia County Circuit Court judges will soon decide whether more than 300 individual lawsuits against Skanska USA for economic losses from the monthslong shutdown of the Pensacola Bay Bridge can move forward.

Skanska is seeking to dismiss hundreds of lawsuits it is facing after a federal appeals court determined it was negligent for failing to properly secure barges as Hurricane Sally approached the Gulf Coast in 2020.

During the hurricane, nearly two dozen barges broke loose from their moorings, knocking the Pensacola Bay Bridge out of commission for several months and causing property damage where they washed up along the shores of Pensacola and Escambia bays.

In a rare three-judge hearing on Thursday, attorneys for Skanska and the more than 300 businesses and individuals suing the international construction giant made their legal arguments on whether the case can move forward.

Escambia Circuit Judge Jan Shackelford, who led the proceedings, was joined by circuit judges Jennifer Frydrychowicz and Amy Brodersen. The judges didn't give any indication on how they intended to rule, but Shackelford said she would notify the attorneys with a timeline of when to expect a ruling from the judges.

Shackelford also told the attorneys that all pre-trial motions and discovery should be completed this year, so any cases that are going to trial can be ready by 2025 when the court is expected to rotate the judges who oversee civil cases.

The Thursday hearing came just two months after Skanska lost its first jury trial and was ordered to pay $1.6 million to DeLuna Oyster Company after a loose barge destroyed the company's oyster farm during Hurricane Sally.

Unlike the Oyster farm trial and a handful of other pending cases where direct property damage was caused, the more than 300 other cases involve indirect damages from economic loss to businesses and individuals from the closure of the Pensacola Bay Bridge.

Skanska is seeking to dismiss those cases, arguing that a 1927 precedent under maritime law known as the Robin's Dry Dock case applies that only allows people whose physical property was damaged to sue for those damages.

Attorney Hal Watson, who was representing Skanska, said the Robin's Dry Dock case drew a "bright line" of who could sue for damages in maritime cases.

"If you have a proprietary interest in a damaged property, you have a cause of action," Watson said. "If you don't have a proprietary interest in damaged property, you don't have a cause of action. Allowing a cause of action based upon a jury's decision of foreseeability would just open the floodgates. It would have a massive impact on the maritime industry and an even more massive impact on the insurance industry."

The group of businesses intending to sue Skanska put forward two main arguments.

First, they argued that the provisions of maritime law Skanska is trying to invoke to shield itself from their claims do not apply and that when it comes to economic damages, Florida common law should be applied to supplement the maritime law aspects of the case. Florida common law would allow the parties to seek economic damages from the closure of the bridge.

The second argument the businesses put forward is that Skanska's actions during Hurricane Sally opened them up to economic damage liability because their actions meet the legal definition of an intentional act, which would be an exception to the limit on economic damages in the Robin's Dry Dock case.

Attorney Brian Barr, who is one attorney representing the business suing Skanska, argued that the cases meet the exceptions that federal courts have created for the Robin's Dry Dock case and that the court is allowed to use Florida common law when judging the case.

"This court is not a mindless body incapable of looking to state remedies purely because the case sounds maritime," Barr said.

Barr also said that maritime law has been used to protect international and interstate trade and that courts have allowed state laws to apply in cases that are "local" in nature.

"There is nothing more local than this case," Barr said.

Previously: Skanska lost its appeal. What that ruling means for Pensacola.

Attorney Sam Geisler, who is also representing the businesses, made the argument that Robin's Dry Dock precedent doesn't apply if the party acted "intentionally" knowing the damage would occur.

Watson called that argument ridiculous.

"The notion that Skanska acted with the intent to damage the Pensacola Bay Bridge is ludicrous," Watson said.

Watson said a for-profit company would never intend to make a decision that ultimately cost it more than $100 million.

Geisler said the legal standard of "intentionality" has already been met in the facts that both sides have agreed to: the intentionality standard can be met when any action is substantially certain to result in injury and not dependent on whether the person meant for the result to happen.

"Building-sized barges don't leave dents; they destroy," Geisler said. "That is a certainty. It's a certainty made more clear when Skanska couldn't control its barges, in fact, before tropical-storm winds arrived. It's a certainty made more clear when Skanska left – between the bridge and the pier – its most complex crane barge to drive piles into that Sunday. This is a barge so massive and so complex that even Skanska's own hurricane preparedness plan required to move that barge first before anything else, and yet it continued to drive piles late into the day Sunday."

Geisler said Skanska knew the stakes of losing the Pensacola Bay Bridge because the company conducted an economic analysis of the Pensacola area when it bid on the project to build the bridge, and the court is the only way to hold the company accountable.

"Ultimately, the court has to afford a path to provide accountability for these businesses and wage earners harmed," Geisler said.

This article originally appeared on Pensacola News Journal: Skanska USA wants to toss hundreds of Pensacola Bay Bridge lawsuits