PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — A league of defense attorneys appeared Tuesday in R.I. Superior Court, requesting a judge toss out a state lawsuit that alleges 13 private companies are responsible for the failure of the westbound Washington Bridge.

About two dozen lawyers representing both the defendants and the state showed up to argue over whether the case should continue, with defense attorneys saying the case shouldn't be allowed to move forward for a variety of technical and legal reasons.

They included whether the state appropriately filed the lawsuit, whether it was specific enough in its claims and whether the defendants should share any legal responsibility with Rhode Island if a third party sues the state over the infrastructure debacle at some point in the future.

Attorney Lawrence Prosen, who represents one of the defendants, AECOM Technical Services Inc., also placed blame back on the state, saying the R.I. Department of Transportation knew the bridge had issues -- yet failed to fix them before the bridge was ordered closed in December 2023.

"The bridge needed repair work and the state knew that," Prosen told Judge Brian Stern, who's presiding over the case. "They could have, and did not, take action."

The bridge, which carried more than 90,000 vehicles each day, has been closed to traffic for more than year. Gov. Dan McKee last spring hired an outside legal team to pursue litigation against anybody that may have been responsible for the failure.

In August, the team filed a lawsuit seeking unspecified financial damages from the 13 companies, saying they failed to identify and address "worsening structural issues" tied to the bridge. To date, no state official has been held accountable publicly for the infrastructure failure.

Much of the debate Tuesday centered around whether the state filed the lawsuit appropriately, with defendants arguing they are protected under what's called the "economic loss doctrine." The legal principle, in simple terms, means entities operating under a contract can't be held responsible for property damages or negligence outside of the terms contained in the contract.

The defendants leaned heavily on the idea, saying they are protected from the many allegations of negligence outlined in the state's complaint. They also said the state didn't provide them with adequate and complete notice about the lawsuit ahead of it being filed in court.

"The economic loss doctrine applies and I don't think there's anything around that," said Jeffrey Blease, a defense attorney representing a joint venture between Barletta Heavy Division Inc. and Aetna Bridge Co. (The joint venture had been working to repair the bridge before it was closed. Aetna has since been hired as the lead contractor to demolish the defunct bridge.)

State attorneys pushed back at the defense, saying they filed the lawsuit appropriately, gave the defendants adequate notice and that they and the court need more time to determine whether the economic loss doctrine is even relevant to the case.

"The court really needs the full record -- the full set of facts," said Stephen Provazza of the R.I. Attorney General's Office. He urged the judge to rule against the defendants' motions to dismiss.

Diana Martin, a state-hired attorney who specializes in tort law, also argued that AECOM, specifically, failed in its fiduciary duty to Rhode Island, which hired the company to consult, advise and guide RIDOT on matters related to the bridge.

"The state placed trust and confidence in AECOM and relied on the advice and judgement of AECOM," she said.

Stern said he would take the arguments under consideration and his goal is to make a decision "quickly" whether the case should move forward.