Traffic flows in both directions on Interstate 195 on the eastbound side of the Washington Bridge on Thursday, Feb. 27, 2025, at 3:52 p.m. Demolition work on the westbound side of the Washington Bridge is progressing. (Rhode Island Department of Transportation Traffic Camera)
State officials scored a minor victory Thursday in their lawsuit against Washington Bridge contractors after a Rhode Island Superior Court judge denied the accused companies’ attempt to toss the case.
The 41-page order issued by Superior Court Judge Brian Stern does not settle the ongoing legal dispute — which attempts to determine who is at fault, and what they might owe in damages — for the structural deficiencies uncovered beneath the westbound highway in December 2023. Instead, Stern concluded there is insufficient evidence to meet the high legal standard of proof needed to dismiss the case against 13 vendors contracted to conduct maintenance, repairs and related work prior to the bridge’s sudden closure and subsequent demolition.
“The State has alleged a conceivable case that Defendants breached their contract by inadequately performing their duties and by failing to notice damage to the Washington Bridge,” Stern wrote. “The Court acknowledges that this is a close call, but this near tie goes to the Plaintiff.”
Stern continued, “It is conceivable that these professional engineering firms breached an express or implied promise in their contracts with the State by failing to adequately address the myriad of issues with the Washington Bridge.”
However, Stern’s decision does not preclude the seven companies that filed separate motions to dismiss the case from again seeking to have the lawsuit tossed. His order gives the state, represented by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha and Providence attorney Jonathan Savage, 30 days to amend its complaint.
Stern’s order pokes holes in a key argument within the state’s initial August 2024 complaint, which seeks to recover damages based on alleged economic losses and physical damages, along with breaches of contracts. However, the companies in their written responses sought to separate the general economic losses from what is actually required of them in their contracts, relying on a principle known as the “economic loss doctrine.”
The state in response argued that the doctrine did not apply when considering personal injury or property damage. But, as Stern noted in his order, the state failed to prove injury or physical damage beyond the damage to the bridge itself — which means the economic loss doctrine could still apply.
If the state fails to submit a revised complaint specifying the damage needed to qualify its negligence claims, Stern’s order leaves open the option for companies to again try to dismiss that part of the lawsuit.
Tim Rondeau, a spokesperson for Neronha’s office, said in a text Thursday that the office was still reviewing the judge’s order.
Gov. Dan McKee’s office did not immediately return inquiries for comment Thursday afternoon.
One of the companies named in the lawsuit, Warwick-based Aetna Bridge Co., was awarded the state’s $100 million contract to demolish the existing superstructure and underlying foundation. The demolition is expected to be finished in December.
The state is expected to choose in June between two finalists competing for the contract to build the replacement bridge — the cost of which has not been determined.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.