When Shore-Based Employees Qualify as Seamen

What vessel operators need to know about Maritime Employers Liability, and why standard coverage isn’t enough.

Byron Gizoni was a rigging foreman at a ship repair facility in San Diego. He worked on floating platforms, pontoon barges, crane barges, and diver’s barges that had no power or steering of their own. Tugboats moved them into position alongside vessels being repaired. Gizoni rode those platforms as they were towed, occasionally served as a lookout, gave maneuvering signals to the tugboat operator, and received lines from ships’ crews to secure the platforms to the vessels under repair.

He was injured when his foot broke through a thin wooden sheet covering a hole in a platform deck.

Gizoni filed for and received Longshore benefits, the standard response for a ship repairman. His employer, Southwest Marine, assumed that was the end of it. Ship repairman is a job specifically named in the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), and Southwest Marine argued that made Gizoni a harbor worker with Longshore as his exclusive remedy. Gizoni disagreed and filed a Jones Act lawsuit, alleging he was a seaman injured due to his employer’s negligence.

Download our MEL Quick Reference Guide

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gizoni’s favor. In Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Gizoni (1991), the Court held that a worker’s job title does not determine whether they qualify as a seaman. What matters is the worker’s actual connection to a vessel. Because Gizoni worked on and rode the floating platforms, contributed to their operation, and had a substantial employment-related connection to those vessels, he could qualify as a Jones Act seaman, regardless of what his job was called. The Court also rejected the argument that accepting Longshore benefits barred a subsequent Jones Act claim.

Gizoni is the case that established that Longshore coverage alone is not enough for those working on vessels. The Court confirmed that the same employee can be covered by the LHWCA for compensation purposes and still qualify as a Jones Act seaman for negligence liability purposes. Those two frameworks are not mutually exclusive. Maritime Employers Liability exists precisely because of that overlap.

The practical implication for agents: an employer that has people working on a watercraft can have Longshore coverage in place and still face uninsured Jones Act liability if an employee qualifies as a seaman. Job title doesn’t determine which framework applies. The worker’s actual connection to a vessel does. MEL is the coverage that responds to the Jones Act side of that equation.

What MEL Is and Why It Gets Missed

Maritime Employers Liability is the coverage that protects employers who have employees working from vessels they don’t own from liability to employees who qualify as seamen under the Jones Act. Unlike workers’ compensation, which is a no-fault system with defined benefits, the Jones Act allows injured crew members to sue their employer. MEL is what responds to that liability. When an employee qualifies as a seaman, workers’ comp doesn’t apply, and Longshore doesn’t apply. Without MEL, the employer pays Jones Act claims out of pocket.

The Classification Problem Agents Face

MEL gets missed because the accounts that need it don’t always look like they do. The employees most likely to trigger MEL exposure are not always the obvious ones, like the full-time captain or regular deckhand. They’re the employees whose relationship to the vessel is partial, occasional, or ambiguous.

Courts have consistently held that crew status doesn’t require full-time vessel work. It requires a substantial connection to a vessel and work that contributes to the vessel’s function or mission, even if that work is not the employee’s primary job.

• Shore-based employees who board vessels regularly, even occasionally, as a predictable part of their duties
• Dual-role workers who split time between vessel and shore work, needing MEL for vessel injuries and Longshore or state comp for shore-side injuries
• Independent contractors who work alongside crew on vessel operations, as maritime law doesn’t care how someone is paid, only their relationship to the vessel
• Seasonal or project-based workers whose crew status changes with the work; coverage structured around permanent crew may not account for peak-season exposure

If coverage is structured without accounting for these employees and one of them is injured on a vessel, the result is a Jones Act claim with no policy to respond to it, and a conversation with a client about why the coverage everyone assumed was in place wasn’t there to respond.

How to Identify Accounts That Need MEL

You don’t need to make classification determinations yourself. You need to recognize when the question is worth asking:

1. Does the client operate or charter any vessels?
   If yes, MEL should be on the table.
2. Do any employees work on or from vessels as a regular part of their job?
   Regular means predictable, not constant.
3. Are there employees whose duties change by season, project, or location?
   Variable duties create variable classification.
4. Does the client use contractors for vessel-related work?
   Contractor status doesn’t eliminate Jones Act exposure.
5. Has the workforce or operations changed since the last renewal?
   Growth and new projects create new exposure. 

A yes to any of those means MEL belongs in the coverage structure. If the answers are uncertain, that’s reason enough to get underwriting guidance before placing coverage. Our expert underwriting team is here to help. 

 

Contact us for a 15-minute account review call.
(727) 578-2800 | Ask@LIGMarine.com

Download our MEL Quick Reference Guide

Follow us on LinkedIn

Jones Act Waiver in Action: What the M.V. Garnet Express Tells Us About Coverage Exposure

The theory became reality in early April.

A Marshall Islands-flagged tanker called the Garnet Express loaded jet fuel at Marathon Petroleum’s Anacortes refinery in Washington State and headed south to the San Francisco area. It was one of the first foreign-flagged vessels to move refined product between U.S. ports under the 2026 Jones Act waiver, and it made headlines precisely because it was still so unusual.

But for marine insurers and the agents who place marine accounts, the more important question isn’t whether the voyage happened. It’s what that voyage represents for underwriting, crew liability, and coverage adequacy on the accounts already on your book.

From Policy to Practice

When we wrote about the waiver in March, the concern was forward-looking: foreign-flagged vessels entering coastwise service would bring unfamiliar risk profiles, and the lack of case law around crew injury claims would leave claims teams navigating new territory.

The Garnet Express is that concern made concrete.

The waiver remains active through May 17, 2026. CBP confirmed that cargo must be loaded before that date, meaning additional foreign-flag coastwise voyages are likely before the window closes. Each one creates the same set of questions for underwriters: What is the vessel’s condition history? Who is crewing it? What does their P&I coverage look like, and does it include Jones Act crew liability? Will the President extend this waiver?

The Crew Liability Question Hasn’t Gone Away

The waiver only affects coastwise carriage rules. It does not change maritime law on crew injuries.

What it may do is make it easier for foreign crew to establish a U.S. connection for purposes of a Jones Act claim. A foreign national crewing a vessel that loads cargo in Washington and delivers it to California has made a coastwise voyage between two U.S. ports. That connection matters when courts analyze whether Jones Act remedies apply.

There is still very little case law on this specific fact pattern. But the direction of the risk is clear: claims teams should expect more attempts by foreign crew to file Jones Act claims, higher defense costs regardless of outcome, and more scrutiny of whether P&I policies include explicit Jones Act and MEL coverage.

If those policies assume U.S.-flagged vessels and U.S. crew, they may not respond the way an assured expects.

What Agents Should Be Watching

The Garnet Express voyage received more prominent media coverage because it was one of the first. Future voyages won’t generate headlines, but they carry the same exposure profile.

For agents placing marine accounts, the waiver period is a good prompt to ask some practical questions:

• Do your commercial marine and Longshore accounts have any exposure to foreign-flagged vessels entering their supply chain, ports, or terminals?
  
  
• Are their P&I or MEL policies and coverage checking procedures structured to respond to crew injuries on foreign-flag vessels operating in U.S. waters?
  
  
• Has anything changed about how their operations intersect with coastwise shipping during the waiver period?

These aren’t hypothetical risk management questions that can wait for renewal. The voyages are happening now, and the coverage gaps that exist today are the claims problems that surface over the next several years.

A single voyage by a foreign-flagged vessel with a foreign crew, operating under a temporary waiver with no established precedent on crew injury liability, is exactly the kind of scenario that ends up in litigation years after the policy was written.

Questions on Your Marine Accounts?

The marine coverage landscape is shifting in real time, and not all retail agents have the specialty background to evaluate how those shifts affect their clients’ programs. That’s where LIG Marine functions as an extension of your team.

If you have accounts with waterfront exposure, vessel operations, or any connection to coastwise shipping, we’re glad to take a look. Reach us at Ask@LIGMarine.com or (727) 578-2800.

Want to keep up with developments in commercial marine and Longshore insurance? Follow LIG Marine on LinkedIn.

Mind the Gap: The Contractor Who Wasn't Marine (Until the Claim Said Otherwise)

An agent submitted what appeared to be a straightforward general contractor account. The client did marine construction—seawalls, dock repairs, shoreline stabilization—but the agent figured it was essentially land-based work that happened near water. State workers' comp and standard GL felt sufficient.

When an employee was injured while working on a partially submerged piling, the workers' comp claim was denied because the work qualified under Longshore jurisdiction. The GL carrier questioned coverage because the work involved marine structures. And the client, who'd been in business for 15 years, was suddenly facing six figures in uninsured exposure.

The agent called us asking how they missed it. They didn't miss anything obvious. They missed the small details that, together, made this a marine contractor account that needed marine contractor coverage.

Tip: If you've already confirmed your client is a marine contractor account, use our Marine Contractors Coverage Checklist to make sure the coverage structure fits the exposure before you bind.

The Problem: "Marine Contractor" Doesn't Always Look “Marine”

When agents think "marine contractor," they often picture shipyards, vessel repair, or diving operations. Those are marine contractors. But so are these:

• Companies that build or repair docks, piers, and seawalls
• Contractors who do dredging or excavation near navigable waters
• Pile driving operations along shorelines
• Bridge work over navigable waterways
• Marine environmental remediation
• Underwater or waterfront construction of any kind

The work doesn't need to happen on the water. It just needs to happen near it, over it, or in a way that involves marine structures or navigable waterways. That proximity changes everything about how coverage should be structured.

Where "Shore-Based" Work Stops Being Shore-Based

Here's what often trips agents up: a contractor can spend 80% of their time on dry land and still have significant marine exposure. 

A dock builder who works from shore
A contractor builds boat docks. Most of the construction happens on the shoreline—cutting materials, assembling sections, staging equipment. But employees regularly work over water to install pilings, secure structures, or make final adjustments. That water-adjacent work triggers Longshore exposure, even if it's not the primary activity.

A seawall contractor who "never goes near vessels"
A contractor repairs seawalls and bulkheads. No boats involved. But the work happens at the water's edge, often involves equipment positioned partially in the water, and requires employees to work from floating platforms or barges. That's marine work, even if vessels aren't part of the equation.

A general contractor who took "one marine project"
A commercial contractor takes on a waterfront renovation that includes dock repairs. It's a small part of their annual revenue, but during that project, employees are exposed to maritime hazards. That exposure doesn't disappear just because it's not their core business.

The mistake some agents make is treating "marine contractor" as a binary classification. In reality, it's about what employees are actually doing on any given day—and whether that work creates exposures that standard coverage doesn't address.

Equipment Can Change Everything

Marine contractors use equipment differently than traditional contractors, and that difference matters for coverage. 

Floating equipment and barges
If your client uses barges, floating platforms, or pontoon-mounted equipment—even occasionally—that's a marine exposure. It doesn't matter if they own the equipment or rent it for a specific project. Once work happens *from* a floating structure, you're in maritime territory.

Equipment that operates in or over water
Cranes that extend over water, excavators working from shorelines, pile drivers operating partially submerged—these aren't just "heavy equipment." They're marine equipment, and incidents involving them can trigger marine liability considerations that standard GL policies aren't designed to handle.

Specialized marine tools
Diving equipment, underwater cutting tools, marine-grade rigging—if your client uses it, they're probably doing marine work. And if they're doing marine work, they need marine coverage.

The challenge is that contractors often lease or rent this equipment for specific projects, so it's not obvious from their balance sheet or equipment schedule. You have to ask: "What equipment do you use, and where do you use it?"

The Labor Structure That Creates Coverage Gaps

Marine contractors rarely have a static workforce. Employees move between different types of projects, and responsibilities shift based on location and contract requirements. That variability creates coverage gaps that standard policies don't anticipate.

Dual-role employees
A construction foreman might supervise land-based work on Monday and dock construction on Wednesday. Same employee, same job title, completely different exposure. If you're classifying them based on their job description rather than their actual duties, you're guessing about coverage.

Subcontractors who do the marine work
Many general contractors subcontract the "marine parts" of a project—pile driving, underwater work, dock installation. That's smart project management. But if the subcontractor's coverage is inadequate or if indemnification agreements aren't structured correctly, the general contractor still has exposure.

Seasonal or project-based crews
Some marine contractors scale up for specific projects, bringing in temporary labor or specialized crews. If those workers aren't properly classified, you can end up with workers' compensation gaps, Longshore issues, or liability exposure that wasn't accounted for in the premium.

Ask your client: "Do your employees perform the same type of work year-round, or does it change by project? Do you use subcontractors for any waterfront or marine-related work? How do you handle labor for short-term or seasonal projects?"

How Operations Change Without Anyone Noticing

This is the issue that most often catches agents off guard: marine contractors evolve gradually, and those changes don't always trigger a coverage review.

New services
A contractor who primarily does seawall repairs starts taking on dock construction projects. Or a land-based excavation company adds dredging services. The new work introduces marine exposures, but because it happens incrementally, nobody treats it as a coverage trigger.

Geographic expansion
A contractor who worked exclusively on inland lakes starts taking projects on coastal waterways or navigable rivers. The type of work hasn't changed, but the jurisdiction has—and that affects which regulations apply and which coverage is required.

Larger projects with higher contract values
A contractor who used to do small residential docks starts bidding on municipal or commercial projects. The work is fundamentally the same, but the contract requirements, liability limits, and indemnification obligations are completely different.

Increased use of marine equipment 
A contractor who rarely used barges or floating equipment starts relying on them regularly. What was occasional marine work becomes standard practice—but the coverage structure hasn't kept pace.

What to do about it
Don’t wait until renewal to ask about changes. If you hear your client mention new projects, new geographies, or new equipment, treat it as a potential coverage trigger and review the placement. And let your clients know upfront: if they start working near the water, even on a single project, that’s something you need to hear about before the work begins.

What Happens When You Get This Wrong

When a marine contractor is misclassified or underinsured, the consequences aren't minor:

• Workers’ comp provides no coverage for employees who qualify as Longshore workers, because an unendorsed WC policy simply doesn’t extend to that jurisdiction
• GL policies exclude coverage because the work involves marine structures or operations
• Excess policies don't respond because the underlying coverage is inadequate or misaligned
• Agents face E&O exposure when coverage gaps that should have been addressed at placement become the agent’s problem at claim time

And the agent ends up in a difficult conversation about why coverage everyone thought was in place... wasn't.

How to Approach Marine Contractor Accounts Correctly

You don't need to be a marine insurance expert to place these accounts well. You just need to ask the right questions and recognize when the answers indicate marine exposure.

Start with these:

1. Where does the work actually happen? Not "we're a construction company"—where do your employees physically work? Are they ever on, over, or immediately adjacent to navigable water?
2. What equipment do you use, and where do you use it? Do you use floating equipment, barges, or specialized marine tools? Even occasionally?
3. Do your employees ever work from vessels or floating platforms? Even briefly, even rarely—if the answer is yes, that's marine exposure.
4. What kind of work do your subcontractors do? If they're doing the marine-adjacent parts of your projects, you still have exposure.
5. Have you added any new services, projects, or locations in the past two years? Growth is great. Unaddressed growth creates coverage gaps.

If the answers to these questions reveal marine exposure, even part-time or occasional, don't try to force it into a standard contractor placement. Structure it correctly from the start.

Once you've worked through those questions and confirmed you're looking at a marine contractor account, the next step is making sure the coverage structure actually fits the exposure. Our Marine Contractors Coverage Checklist walks through every line these accounts typically need so nothing gets missed before you bind.

And if you're working on an account that feels unclear, we're happy to review it with you before you submit.

Contact us for a 15-minute account review call.
(727) 578-2800 | Ask@LIGMarine.com

Jones Act Waiver 2026: Implications for the Marine Insurance Sector

Why the President Authorized the Waiver


President Trump authorized the temporary suspension of the Jones Act in response to rapidly rising gasoline and fuel prices driven by the Iran conflict. The war severely disrupted global oil supply chains, including the effective shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, a route for nearly 15 million barrels of oil per day. Combined with Brent crude nearing $110 per barrel, these pressures contributed to rapid increases in domestic fuel costs. By allowing foreign tankers to move oil, gas, and related commodities between U.S. ports, the administration sought to expand transport capacity, reduce shipping costs, and mitigate short‑term supply constraints. The White House emphasized that the measure is intended to stabilize energy flows and slow the rise in gasoline prices.

Overview

The 2026 temporary suspension of the Jones Act cabotage provisions introduces operational and risk‑transfer dynamics that the marine insurance sector must understand. The waiver authorizes foreign‑flagged and foreign‑crewed vessels to carry specified cargoes between U.S. ports for 60 days.

Scope of the Waiver

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has publicly issued implementation instructions confirming the waiver’s effective window, the 659 covered products, and the absence of geographic limitations on U.S. to U.S. voyages. These details—not the unreleased waiver instrument—govern vessel eligibility during the 60‑day suspension. Marine underwriters should note that foreign‑flag vessels operating under this waiver may enter coastwise service temporarily without gaining any change in legal status. 

US Crew Injury Liability Remains Unchanged

The waiver affects only the coastwise carriage rules under 46 U.S.C. §55102 and does not modify seamen’s rights under 46 U.S.C. §30104. Foreign crew operating on vessels in coastwise service under the waiver do not acquire any special injury remedies, nor are any existing remedies diminished. Claims related to negligence, maintenance and cure, and unseaworthiness continue to be analyzed under traditional maritime‑law frameworks, however whilst there is little case law it would seem that this change would allow foreign crew an easier way to establish a US connection to Jones Act remedies regardless of the flag of the vessel or their nationality.

Why the Waiver Document Is Not Public

CBP has not released the actual waiver document and its underlying justification. This is standard when the waiver is activated in response to an interagency request tied to national defense. Only private waiver requests must be published under CBP’s statutory obligations. In contrast, defense‑related waivers initiated by the Department of Defense and granted by DHS are not posted; therefore, CBP has released only operational guidance—Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS) notices and product lists—rather than the waiver itself.

Implications for Marine Insurers

• Underwriting should focus on vessel condition, temporary routing patterns, and expanded coastwise activity by foreign‑flag tonnage.
• Claims teams should expect some Foreign Crew on foreign-flag vessels to attempt to bring Jones Act claims.   Without precedents, it is impossible to predict how the courts will react, but at a minimum, there will be increased focus and defense costs on these claims.
• Compliance audits should rely on CBP’s published CSMS guidance rather than searching for a waiver document that is not legally required to be public.
• Agents and Brokers should advise assureds that the waiver facilitates market access but may also expand the crew injuries part of the act.

Conclusion

For the marine insurance sector, the 2026 Jones Act waiver is best understood as a logistics‑focused, defense‑driven measure that expands permissible coastwise carriage whilst opening the door to potential expansion of crew claims.

Ports & Terminals: Where Marine Risk Is Often Underestimated

Ports and terminals are some of the most complex environments in marine insurance. They often sit at the intersection of land-based operations and marine activity, which can make exposures harder to spot and easier to underestimate.



On paper, two terminal operations may look similar. In reality, small differences in how work is performed, where employees operate, and how vessels are involved can significantly change the risk profile.



For agents working with ports, terminals, and related contractors, understanding these nuances is critical to structuring coverage correctly.


Mixed Operations That Don’t Fit Neatly in One Box

Ports and terminals often support multiple activities at once, which can blur exposure lines.

• Employees moving between land-based and waterfront tasks
• Operations shifting with vessel schedules
• Facilities serving both marine and non-marine purposes

Contractors Working Alongside Terminal Employees

Third-party labor can quickly change the exposure picture.

• Contractors performing marine-adjacent work
• Overlapping responsibilities
• Unclear supervision or scope

Vessel Interaction That Feels Incidental

Limited vessel interaction can still matter.

• Employees boarding vessels
• Floating platforms or barges
• Dockside maintenance

Operational Changes That Happen Gradually

Growth or expansion can introduce new risks.

• Expanded services
• New vessel traffic
• Changes since last renewal

Assumptions Based on Familiarity

Long-standing accounts can quietly evolve.

• Historical placement assumptions
• Lack of recent detailed review

How to Approach These Accounts More Confidently

Ports and terminals rarely present risk in isolation. Exposure is typically driven by multiple factors coming together. The goal is knowing when to pause and take a closer look.

Download our Ports & Terminals Risk Checklist to walk through the most common exposures and identify when a deeper underwriting conversation is needed. 

Questions?

LIG’s marine underwriters are here to help evaluate complex operations and structure coverage with confidence.


Contact us: 

(727) 578-2800 | Ask@LIGMarine.com

War Risk in the Gulf: What Marine Insurance Managers Need to Know Right Now

The escalating conflict in the Middle East has created one of the most rapidly shifting marine insurance environments in recent memory. Here is what is happening, what it means for coverage, and where things stand today.

What Changed

Following U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran in late February, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared the Strait of Hormuz "closed" and threatened to attack any vessel attempting to transit. The insurance market responded immediately. Major war risk providers canceled existing war risk cover for vessels in the region.

The London Market Is Still Open

Despite the cancellations, coverage has not disappeared. Marine insurers in London continued to offer cover in the Middle East even as war risk premiums rose, with capacity remaining available through Lloyd's for clients actively seeking it.

The cost, however, has changed significantly. War risk premiums climbed as high as 1% of a vessel's value within 48 hours, up from roughly 0.2% the week prior. On a $100M vessel, that translates to a single-voyage premium jumping from approximately $200,000 to $1 million. The Joint War Committee also expanded its high-risk zone to include waters around Bahrain, Djibouti, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar, meaning the affected area now extends well beyond the strait itself.

What's Driving the Pricing

There is no single rate to quote. Increases depend on vessel type, cargo, and routing, requiring individual risk assessment. War risk ratings are now shifting daily in response to geopolitical developments, which makes real-time underwriting guidance essential.

LIG Marine Underwriting

This is a complex and fast-moving situation, but it is a navigable one. As a Lloyd's broker with direct access to the London market, our team is actively monitoring developments in the Gulf and working with agents and brokers to identify coverage solutions for clients with exposure in the region.

Contact us: (727) 578-2800 | Ask@LIGMarine.com

Wreck Removal: The Uncapped Liability Marine Insurers Can’t Afford to Ignore

For decades, marine liability followed a predictable framework: shipowners’ exposure was capped based on vessel tonnage under international conventions, and wreck removal costs sat comfortably within that limit.

That framework is breaking down.

Recent legal and regulatory developments are transforming wreck removal from a manageable component of liability into an increasingly uncapped exposure – one that can far exceed all other claim costs.

What's Driving the Change

Evolving legal interpretations of limitation

Recent court decisions in multiple jurisdictions, including Australia's Full Court ruling in April 2025, have determined that wreck removal and environmental clean-up costs are not subject to traditional limitation.

Rising environmental enforcement

Coastal states are exercising greater authority to direct wreck removal operations, prioritizing environmental protection over cost considerations. When regulators mandate immediate action, costs escalate quickly.

Stronger environmental enforcement
More countries are considering accession to the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks 2007, which mandates compulsory wreck removal insurance for vessels of 300 gross tonnage or higher.

Escalating removal costs
Modern wreck removal operations routinely cost $15-20 million or more, often exceeding the vessel's value.

These developments matter to U.S. insurers and brokers even when incidents occur overseas. Coverage placed in the U.S. must respond globally – including in jurisdictions where limitation no longer applies.

The "Severity Multiplier" Problem

Historically, casualty exposure was modeled around vessel value, cargo, limited third-party liability, and pollution risk, with wreck removal folded into the overall cap.

Today, wreck removal acts as a severity multiplier. For example, a $10 million vessel can generate a $20 million removal claim, turning an otherwise limited loss into a major, uncapped exposure.

What This Means for U.S. Marine Insurance Placement

Wreck removal is no longer a minor policy detail – it’s a material risk requiring explicit attention, especially for internationally operating clients.

• Aggregation models may understate severity where limitation no longer applies
• Endorsements or standalone wreck removal cover may be needed
• Jurisdictional differences must be addressed at placement

Wreck removal has become one of the most unpredictable elements of marine casualty claims. Coverage structures must evolve alongside the shifting liability landscape.

The question isn’t whether wreck removal will remain a severity multiplier – it’s whether your clients’ coverage is built to respond when it does.

LIG Marine Underwriting

We help agents and brokers navigate evolving marine exposures, including wreck removal liability in jurisdictions where traditional limitation frameworks are changing.

Contact us: (727) 578-2800 | Ask@LIGMarine.com