A Tuesday morning hearing in the state’s lawsuit against Washington Bridge contractors offered a crash course in legal theory, but little direction on whether the companies that worked on the bridge before its closure will have to pay.
Phrases like “economic loss doctrine” and “integrated system theory” peppered the 90-minute hearing in Rhode Island Superior Court Judge Brian Stern’s third-floor Providence courtroom. The state, represented by the Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General and private attorneys, contends that the 13 companies brought on to inspect, repair and maintain the westbound highway span since 2013 should be held responsible for failing to detect structural deficiencies that led to its abrupt closure in December 2023.
Lawyers for four engineering and construction vendors argue they had no contractual obligation to prevent or detect the infrastructure problems. They are asking to throw out all or parts of the state’s claims against them.
Stern did not rule on the motion Tuesday, but said he plans to make a decision by the end of the month.
A similar back-and-forth over the legal standard for the lawsuit played out earlier this year, when seven of the 13 vendors pushed to have the case tossed. Their arguments centered on a legal principle oft-invoked in construction cases known as the economic loss doctrine, which shields contractors from being sued for unspecified and foreseeable economic harms, including product damage and profit losses.
Personal injury and damage to property beyond the product itself are the most common criteria used in successful negligence cases against construction contractors.
Stern’s Feb. 27 order rejected the first attempt by seven of the 13 contractors to toss the case, concluding there was not enough evidence to meet the high legal standard of proof to warrant such a definitive move. But he noted flaws in the state’s initial, August 2024 complaint, which failed to identify specific physical damages beyond the bridge itself.
The state’s amended complaint, filed in April, narrows the focus to wear and tear on the separate, eastbound bridge, which was reconfigured to accommodate Interstate 195 traffic in both directions. It again seeks damages for negligence and breach of contract by the same 13 vendors.
The 53-page updated complaint stands in direct contradiction to Rhode Island Department of Transportation Director Peter J. Alviti’s repeated public assurances that the eastbound bridge was in “good condition” despite the increased traffic load.
Alviti’s public statements didn’t surface in court Tuesday.
Instead, attorneys for the four vendors still seeking to throw out the complaint — Steere Engineering, Inc., Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., Aries Support Services, Inc., and Commonwealth Engineers & Consultants, Inc. — referred back to the economic loss doctrine as the foundation for their arguments.
“We still have the same fundamental deficiency,” said Michael Creta, a partner at K&L Gates in Boston representing Jacobs Engineering. “The state failed to prove other property damage to get around the economic loss doctrine.”
Creta said later, “There is nothing in the amended complaint about damage besides wear and tear, full stop.”
Warren Hutchison, an attorney with Freeman Mathis and Gary representing Steere Engineering, warned of the consequences for future contract disputes if the state can claim negligence against its contractors without proving specific physical damages.
“If we oppose the economic loss doctrine in this case, will the plaintiff ever have a remedy?” Hutchison asked.
Stephen Provazza, assistant state attorney general, countered that the weight and volume of traffic now concentrated along the eastbound bridge — necessitating more frequent repairs and intensive monitoring — met the legal standard to justify negligence.
“The natural consequence of negligence isn’t automatically the bridge being closed,” Provazza said. “This was a sudden disaster, not something you expect when you’re sitting down to negotiate a contract.”
Attorneys for other companies named in the lawsuit attended the hearing, though they have not argued for the case to be thrown out. Rep. Brian Newberry, a North Smithfield Republican and an attorney who represents Vanasse Hanglin Brustlin in the lawsuit, said in an interview after the hearing that if Stern sided with the contractors, he would piggyback on their motion on behalf of his client.
Stern offered little indication of how he will decide, interjecting periodically to ask for clarification from the attorneys who spoke. If he rejects the contractors’ arguments for a second time, the lawsuit will proceed down the long and winding road to trial, with a tentative schedule proposing a six-to-eight-week trial starting in November 2027 — one year before the expected completion date of the new, westbound Washington Bridge.
“One thing the court is wrestling with: At what point should the court deal with this, versus letting it develop a record and maybe it will deal with itself,” Stern said.
The Rhode Island Department of Transportation did not immediately respond to inquiries for comment on Tuesday.
This story was originally published by the Rhode Island Current.
