That doesn't look like a little repair, which is what I had assumed. That looks like the ship's insurer is buying Baltimore a new bridge.

googles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_%28Baltimore%29

The main span of 1,200 feet (366 m) was the third longest span of any continuous truss in the world.

Smooth.

The bridge, at an estimated cost of $110 million

Construction of the Outer Harbor Bridge began in 1972, several years behind schedule and $33 million overbudget.

So $143 million in 1972 dollars...

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

$1.06 billion in 2024 dollars.

EDIT:

https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/details/9697428

95k ton displacement.

https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/Convention-on-Limitation-of-Liability-for-Maritime-Claims-(LLMC).aspx

Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC)

The Convention provides for a virtually unbreakable system of limiting liability.  Shipowners and salvors may limit their liability, except if "it is proved that the loss resulted from his personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such a loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result".

The limit of liability for property claims for ships not exceeding 2,000 gross tonnage is 1 million SDR.

* For larger ships, the following additional amounts are used in calculating the limitation amount: 

• For each ton from 2,001 to 30,000 tons, 400 SDR 

• For each ton from 30,001 to 70,000 tons, 300 SDR

• For each ton in excess of 70,000, 200 SDR

So that'd be 29,200,000 SDR.

https://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/data/rms_sdrv.aspx

1.325610 US dollars per SDR.

So about a $39 million limit on marine liability for a ship of that size, or under 4% of the price of the bridge.

Maybe Baltimore taxpayers are gonna be buying Baltimore a new bridge.

EDIT2: I wonder how owners of larger ships managed to get lower per-ton liability limits than owners of smaller ships.

EDIT3: Oh, wait. Apparently the US isn't party to that treaty. Sounds like the US uses law even more favorable to the shipowner.

https://iclg.com/practice-areas/shipping-laws-and-regulations/usa

The United States is not a party to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims.  Instead, the United States continues to apply the Limitation of Liability Act (the Limitation Act), passed in 1851 to encourage investment in shipping.  Under this Act, vessel owners (including demise charterers) may limit liability to the value of the vessel and pending freight in certain circumstances where the loss occurred without the privity or knowledge of the owner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_of_Liability_Act_of_1851

The Act was passed by Congress on March 3, 1851 to protect the maritime shipping industry; at the time, shipowners were subject to loss from events beyond their control such as storms and pirates, so the Act was designed to limit the shipowners' liability to the value of the vessel. Without it, American shipping was "at a competitive disadvantage" compared to other maritime countries where similar limitations applied.[1]: 260 

Section 3 of the 1851 Act states "the liability of the owner or owners of any ship or vessel ... shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner or owners respectively, in such ship or vessel, and her freight then pending".

I guess if you're gonna knock down a bridge with a container ship, the US is probably a good place to do it.