The Skanska case in Pensacola Federal and Florida civil courts is instructive.
Skanska was building the new bridge over Pensacola Bay. They had over 50 barges involved, and had just completed one of the two spans. Hurricane Sally shifted from expected landfall along the MS-AL line about 75 miles east, and the major impact was the FL-AL line, pushing a major storm surge into Pensacola Bay.
Skanska had a hurricane plan as part of their contract. The plan was detailed, and it involved moving the barges to a safe harbor. They did not do so, and 28 of the barges broke loose, taking out multiple spans of the new bridge. As a result, a 35+ mile detour was required for people living across the bay. A lot of businesses were affected for over 9 months. Those businesses sued in Florida Circuit Civil Court. Skanska sued in Federal Court, and argued the same Maritime Law applied, and they should be limited to direct damages, and limited to the value of the vessels.
Skanska lost in the Federal District Court, and appealed to the Federal Circuit Court. All the lawsuits in Florida Circuit Courts resumed. The Federal Circuit Court overturned the District Court ruling. That fight has the additional element of contract law and liability.
Ultimately, the archaic maritime law is pretty specific, and limits liability to direct liability up to the value of the vessel. That essentially means the cost to repair the bridge itself, deaths of the people on the bridge, but no indirect costs.