Insurers for the architect tied to the Sapelo Island gangway collapse are asking a federal judge in Atlanta to rule that key policies simply do not apply to claims from the disaster. The request takes aim at a sizable layer of potential coverage that insurers say is off the table, a move that could change how much money is available and when families might see it. Plaintiffs who already filed suit in state court are now looking at a second front: a fight over the insurance safety net they thought was there.
Insurers file federal declaratory suit
National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford and Continental Insurance Company have gone to federal court seeking a declaration that two 2024 policies issued to Stevens & Wilkinson do not cover claims tied to the gangway collapse, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. One is a $20 million general liability policy, the other a $15 million excess and umbrella policy, the suit says. If a judge sides with the carriers, those layers of insurance drop out of the pool of money plaintiffs might have counted on.
In their complaint, the insurers argue the families’ claims stem from professional services and are therefore outside these policies: "All of the damages sought in the Underlying Lawsuit as respects Stevens & Wilkinson are sought because of bodily injury arising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services by Stevens & Wilkinson," the filing states, as reported by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The carriers are asking the court to declare they owe no duty to defend or indemnify and to let them claw back defense costs they have already paid.
What families allege
Families and dozens of survivors have a separate wrongful-death and injury suit pending in Gwinnett County that names Stevens & Wilkinson, general contractor Centennial Contractors Enterprises, Crescent Equipment Co. (the fabricator) and other firms, according to reporting by Georgia Public Broadcasting. They allege that on Oct. 19, 2024, an 80-foot gangway failed while roughly 40 people were on it, pitching about 20 into the water and killing seven people who had traveled for a Gullah Geechee cultural event. Lawyers for the families say forensic testing later showed the gangway could hold less than one-third of the weight it was supposed to support.
State response and safety checks
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources, which runs the ferry and docks, says it immediately began reviewing all DNR gangways after the October collapse and assembled a committee to write elevated-structure procedures, according to a DNR letter describing its post-incident steps and new standard operating procedures. The agency’s document directs that elevated structures receive regular assessments and that Category 1 structures be inspected annually by a registered structural engineer. DNR says it has also been involved in replacing and inspecting dock components since the failure.
Legal implications
Coverage battles like this are a familiar subplot in big-ticket construction disasters. Insurers frequently turn to federal court for declaratory-judgment actions to settle whether a policy applies before or while an underlying tort case grinds on, a practice outlined by insurance law commentators. Those rulings can decide whether an insured gets a defense under a reservation of rights, whether defense costs can later be recouped, and which carriers end up funding any settlements or judgments.
Where this leaves the cases
The federal coverage case and the Gwinnett County wrongful-death suit will now move forward on parallel tracks: the federal judge will focus on whether the two policies apply to the professional-liability style claims the families brought, while the state court continues digging into evidence and expert analysis on how the gangway was designed and built, as reported by Georgia Public Broadcasting. Depending on how the coverage suit lands, some recovery paths for plaintiffs could narrow, potentially steering them toward other defendants and whatever insurance those companies still have in play.
For the Sapelo community, and for other coastal spots with similar structures, the fight is about more than policy language. It will decide who actually shoulders the financial and practical fallout of a collapse that families say never should have happened in the first place, setting the stage for rounds of motions, expert reports and hearings before either court decides whether the insurers must pay or the families have to look elsewhere.
