Tacoma responded to ship fire. Now, it’s blamed for vessel’s destruction
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- A fishing ship was destroyed after it caught fire at the Port of Tacoma in 2023.
- The Tacoma Fire Department is accused of mishandling its fight of the blaze.
- The ship’s owner sued the city, claiming damages likely exceeded $100 million.
A commercial fishing ship moored at the Port of Tacoma burned for over a week in April 2023, prompting fears of fuel and oil spills and temporarily requiring northeast Tacoma neighborhoods to shelter in place.
Ultimately, there was no spillage, according to the U.S. Coast Guard, but the Kodiak Enterprise was a total loss. Its owner, Trident Seafoods Corp., thanked the agencies that responded to the fire and subsequent environmental hazard.
Three years later, Trident is casting blame for the blaze’s spread, which it claims led to damages likely north of $100 million.
The alleged culprit: The Tacoma Fire Department.
Trident Seafoods has sued the city of Tacoma, accusing the fire department of mishandling the fire initially contained to the forward part of the vessel and disregarding the expertise of a professional marine firefighting company. TFD’s actions caused the fire to grow out of control, producing “catastrophic additional damage” to the vessel, which had an estimated fair-market value of $185 million, according to the lawsuit filed in Pierce County Superior Court on March 27.
“The City’s conduct constituted gross negligence and recklessness, marked by a conscious disregard of a known and substantial risk of harm,” the complaint said.
Tacoma hadn’t yet been served with the lawsuit as of Wednesday, according to city spokesperson Maria Lee.
“As a standard practice, the City does not comment on pending or active litigation,” Lee wrote in an email.
The Kodiak Enterprise was moored in the Hylebos Waterway in the early morning of April 8, 2023 when authorities were alerted to the fire, The News Tribune previously reported.
TFD arrived on scene at around 3:30 a.m. to fight flames that originated in the forward area of the vessel, according to the lawsuit. While the fire department took command, Trident also engaged a professional marine firefighting company, Resolve Marine Group, as part of Trident’s federally required plan outlining actions in case of a spill. Resolve personnel began arriving at about 6 a.m., the suit said.
By 1:30 p.m., the fire was “substantially under control” when Resolve recommended that TFD adopt a defensive strategy: Seal the forward compartments, deprive the fire of oxygen and allow the fire to burn out within the confined spaces over an extended period, according to the suit.
TFD chose another path, the complaint said.
The department deployed positive pressure ventilation, a technique where a powerful fan is used to pressurize a space, despite widespread recognition within the marine firefighting industry that it’s dangerous for ship fires, according to the lawsuit.
“Unlike land-based structures, vessels contain interconnected compartment systems, machinery spaces, fuel sources, and complex internal pathways,” the filing said. “Forcing pressurized air into a partially-controlled shipboard fire without knowing the exhaust path creates a well-known and substantial risk that oxygen will reach residual fire or heat, causing it to reignite and spread.”
Resolve allegedly disagreed with the strategy, which TFD started implementing at about 6:45 p.m. on the day the fire began, leading to a massive increase in smoke within minutes, according to the complaint. The blaze grew and, soon after, TFD lost control of it, the filing said.
“In the ensuing minutes and hours, the fire spread quickly through the living spaces and superstructure of the Vessel. Eventually, it spread to all other areas of the Vessel, including the engine room and factory,” the suit said. “Ultimately, the Vessel burned from stem to stern. The Vessel was a total loss.”
Agencies probe fire
Two federal agencies that investigated the fire determined that it started when combustible materials ignited within the dry stores area of the vessel, the part of a ship designated for non-refrigerated food storage, according to the agencies’ investigative reports.
Crews had been performing grinding, cutting, welding and other “hot work projects” during the ship’s scheduled dockside maintenance period, the reports said.
The Coast Guard said the fire’s cause couldn’t be definitely determined, but the agency’s report pointed to the two most probable factors: Shipyard personnel conducting hot work failed to prevent sparks or hot debris from entering the dry stores loading hatch, and electrical equipment failed within the dry stores area.
However, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ruled out hot work as a potential cause and concluded that the blaze started from an unknown electrical source in the dry stores area, in a much lengthier and more detailed report. The ATF, which investigates large fires, was the lead federal agency on the case, according to attorney Larry Altenbrun, who’s representing Trident and provided The News Tribune with a copy of the ATF’s findings.
The vessel’s fire alarm system didn’t activate to wake sleeping crew members to provide immediate notification of a fire, according to the Coast Guard’s report, which cited that failure as the primary causal factor of the ship’s constructive loss estimated at $150 million. Three crew members who had been sleeping onboard the ship escaped without getting hurt and were alerted to the fire by a security guard who had been notified by another vessel moored nearby, the report said.
Months before the blaze, Trident was fined $25,000 by the state Department of Ecology for a fire in 2021 that also destroyed one of the company’s ships at the Port of Tacoma, The News Tribune previously reported. Trident was penalized for spilling 20 to 30 gallons of hydraulic oil, negligence and not properly reporting the emergency.
The lawsuit filed late last month seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as punitive damages and legal fees.
Altenbrun declined a request to discuss the case.
“We stand by the detailed allegations in the complaint, but have no further comment on this matter,” Altenbrun said in an email Thursday.
This story was originally published April 6, 2026 at 5:00 AM.
CORRECTION: This story has been updated to include the fire’s determined cause from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ report into the incident.
