Seafood Company Files $185 Million Suit Against Tacoma Over Ship Fire

A Washington seafood company has filed suit against the City of Tacoma, alleging that tactical decisions made by the Tacoma Fire Department during a 2023 shipboard fire caused a contained fire aboard a commercial fishing vessel to spread and destroy a vessel valued at approximately $185 million. 

According to the complaint, a fire broke out aboard the Kodiak Enterprise, a commercial fishing and factory processing vessel owned by Trident Seafoods Corporation, in the early morning hours of April 8, 2023, while the vessel was moored at the Port of Tacoma on the Hylebos Waterway. All crewmembers evacuated safely. Tacoma firefighters were dispatched at approximately 3:19 a.m. 

Trident alleges that, consistent with federal vessel response requirements, it activated its Vessel Response Plan and brought in Resolve Marine Group, the marine firefighting contractor designated in its Coast Guard-approved plan. Resolve personnel reportedly began arriving around 6:00 a.m., but Tacoma Fire remained in command of the incident, with Resolve serving only in an advisory role.

The complaint states that by late morning and early afternoon the fire had been substantially controlled and confined to the forward portion of the vessel, near the dry stores area. Most of the vessel—including the factory spaces, wheelhouse, and engine room—allegedly remained unburned. Resolve then recommended a boundary cooling and isolation strategy: sealing the forward compartments, cooling surrounding spaces, depriving the fire of oxygen, and allowing it to burn out within the confined area. Tacoma Fire allegedly rejected that recommendation. 

The suit centers on a decision made around 6:00 p.m. to deploy positive pressure ventilation (PPV) aboard the vessel. According to the complaint, Tacoma firefighters inserted one or more large positive displacement fans into the vessel several hours after the fire had been brought under control. Trident alleges that marine firefighting personnel from Resolve objected, warning that PPV is dangerous in shipboard fires because vessels contain interconnected compartments, machinery spaces, and fuel sources that can allow forced air to spread fire into previously unaffected areas if exhaust paths are unknown. 

The complaint alleges that Resolve personnel told Tacoma Fire that if the vessel were left in its then-current condition with a fire watch overnight, Resolve would assume control the following morning. According to the filing, that offer was declined, and PPV was deployed at approximately 6:45 p.m. without determining an exhaust path and without consulting vessel representatives or other stakeholders familiar with the vessel’s layout. 

Trident further alleges that Tacoma Fire’s own marine firefighting policy warned that shipboard fires should be approached “in a timely, yet safe and prudent manner; much like the approach to a hazardous materials incident where it is preferable to proceed slowly rather than to react too quickly.” The complaint also cites the IFSTA Marine Firefighting for Land-Based Firefighters manual, identified in Tacoma’s policy as an authoritative reference, which reportedly cautions against ventilation tactics without unified command consultation and vessel input. 

According to the complaint, within minutes of PPV deployment, Resolve personnel observed “thick, black, and pushing with pressure” smoke. Shoreside observers then reportedly saw visible fire for the first time in many hours. Tacoma Fire allegedly lost control of the incident within approximately two hours. At 8:58 p.m., the department’s event chronology reportedly recorded “Transitioning to Defensive.” Firefighters were removed from the vessel, and the fire spread through the living quarters, superstructure, engine room, and factory spaces until the vessel was completely destroyed. 

The complaint alleges that but for the deployment of PPV, the fire would have remained confined to the forward spaces and the vessel would not have been a total loss. Trident claims damages exceeding $100 million and asserts causes of action for negligence, gross negligence, negligent exercise of an undertaken duty, negligence per se, and punitive damages under maritime law.