More than three years after the car carrier Felicity Ace vanished beneath the Atlantic with nearly 4,000 luxury vehicles on board, a German court has begun hearing what could become a landmark test of who’s responsible for the risks of electric vehicle logistics.
The trial, which opened this week in Braunschweig, Lower Saxony, pits the Japanese shipping firm Mitsui Osk Lines (MOL) and a consortium of insurers against two companies within the Volkswagen Group — Porsche and VW Group Logistics.
At stake is not just hundreds of millions in damages but a precedent-setting question: Did an electric car battery spark the blaze that sank the vessel? Or did inadequate safety precautions and poor crisis management turn an accident into a maritime catastrophe?
3,000 meters down
On 16 February 2022, the Felicity Ace was departing from the harbor in Emden, Germany, and heading to the US, carrying nearly €403 million worth of new vehicles.
Among the cargo were 1,100 Porsches, 186 Bentleys, plus Lamborghinis and Audis — all destined for eager buyers across the Atlantic. These accounted for nearly one-fourth of the value.
But off the Azores, fire broke out on board. Despite attempts to tow the ship to safety, it sank two weeks later, coming to rest more than 3,000 meters below the surface. Mercifully, all crew escaped unharmed, but the incident has since haunted both the shipping and automotive sectors.
The ship’s owner and insurers argue that the blaze started in the battery of a Porsche Taycan. They claim VW failed to give sufficient warning about the fire risks associated with shipping high-voltage batteries.
Lawyers for Volkswagen reject this version outright. They say the shipowner was aware of the risks and that the fire might have been contained if the vessel’s foam extinguishing systems had been used correctly.
What did VW know?
At the heart of the case is the principle Germans call Wissensvorsprung — literally, a knowledge advantage. Did Volkswagen have deeper technical insight into battery risks than its shipping partners? And if so, should it have shared that information in more detail?
The court must untangle whether the root cause was a technical fault, human oversight, or a combination of both. In any case, Volkswagen is not held responsible for the fire itself.
Adding to the challenge is that the Felicity Ace is now irretrievable, lying deep under the Atlantic. With no physical wreckage to examine, the court must rely on crew accounts and forensic analysis. The judge who is presiding over the case likened it to a riddle of “what came first — the chicken or the egg.”
Court as an echo chamber
The German Insurance Association has already urged shipping companies to overhaul their fire suppression systems to cope with the unique dangers of lithium-ion batteries, which burn much hotter and longer than conventional fuel fires.
The Braunschweig trial could shape how the costs and responsibilities of shipping electric vehicles are divided in the future. It may also resonate far beyond the German court, as Porsche faces parallel lawsuits that are still pending in Stuttgart and Panama.
Both sides have until 8 October to submit their detailed arguments. However, whatever the verdict, the case is likely to reverberate through an industry still grappling with the challenges of the electric era.
