Jones Act Waiver Extended: Narrower Scope and More Answers for Underwriters

On August 11, the Trump administration approved a second 90-day extension of the Jones Act waiver first issued in March, effective August 17 through mid-November. The waiver remains tied to elevated fuel and shipping costs, the same pressure that prompted the original suspension. But this round comes with real changes: the sweeping exemption from March has been replaced with seven named commodities, and the approval process has tightened considerably.

SCOPE OF THE EXTENSION

Where the March waiver authorized foreign-flagged and foreign-crewed vessels to carry a broad list of cargoes between U.S. ports with minimal case-by-case review, this extension narrows both the cargo list and the approval process.

CBP and MARAD guidance confirms the waiver now covers seven specific commodities: gasoline, jet fuel, crude oil, naphtha, LNG, soybean oil, and fertilizers. Each voyage requires advance approval, cargo, purpose, and vessel information submitted and reviewed, plus a post-voyage report filed within 10 days of completion. The waiver runs August 17, 2026, through November 15, 2026; cargo must be loaded before the expiration date.

CREW INJURY LIABILITY REMAINS UNCHANGED

As with the March waiver, this extension affects only the coastwise carriage rules under 46 U.S.C. §55102. It 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 special injury remedies, nor are existing remedies diminished. What has changed is the paper trail: where the March waiver left little record of which vessels were running repetitive domestic voyages, the new voyage-by-voyage approval and reporting requirements create a documented history for the first time.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MARINE INSURERS

• Underwriting should treat the narrower cargo list and documented approval chain as more workable than the March exemption, but should still confirm whether a vessel's insurance history and classification records match the coastwise exposure it's taking on.

• Claims teams should expect the same foreign-crew Jones Act exposure flagged in March; voyage-specific approval doesn't change the underlying legal question, it only creates better records to evaluate it against.

• Compliance reviews should request the vessel-specific approval and post-voyage report rather than relying on a general assumption that "the waiver covers this," since approval is granted voyage by voyage, not vessel by vessel.

• Agents and brokers should confirm that a client's foreign-flag ownership and financing structure, along with flag-state and sanctions status, has been reviewed alongside the usual P&I and Jones Act questions.

CONCLUSION

The extension is smaller and slower than the waiver it replaces, and for marine insurers, that's the more useful version. A shorter cargo list and a documented, voyage-specific approval chain give underwriters something the March waiver didn't: an actual record to evaluate exposure against, rather than a blanket exemption with no way to tell which vessels were running one-off cargo versus a standing domestic trade lane.

Ian Greenway

The Equipment That Did Not Fit Any Form

How specialized marine equipment is outpacing marine contractors insurance forms, and what agents need to ask when placing marine equipment coverage.

A marine construction company added a remotely operated underwater vehicle to their fleet. The ROV handled pipeline inspection, hull surveys, and site assessment. It cost $340,000 and became central to the company's work within two years.

When the agent went to renew, nobody could agree on where the ROV belonged. The inland marine carrier said it was a watercraft, and its equipment floater sublimited electronic equipment to a fraction of the ROV's value while excluding the underwater environment entirely. The hull carrier said it wasn't a vessel and declined to schedule it. The GL carrier questioned whether the ROV's operations created liability that the base form didn't address.

Eighteen months in, the company still didn't have proper coverage. Then the ROV was damaged during a survey. No policy responded correctly, and the company absorbed most of the loss.

The ROV wasn't unusual. Dozens of marine contractors are running the same equipment right now. The forms just haven't caught up.

Why Specialized Marine Equipment Creates Placement Problems

Standard marine insurance forms were written for the equipment categories that existed when the forms were developed: cranes, heavy equipment, watercraft, electronic systems. Equipment that doesn't fit one category cleanly falls into the gaps between forms, with each carrier pointing to a different exclusion.

The industry is producing new equipment faster than the market is producing forms to cover it. The types that most often create placement problems on marine contractors’ accounts:

• Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) for underwater inspection, survey, and construction

• Unmanned aerial systems (drones) for vessel inspection and site survey

• Autonomous surface vessels for data collection and patrol

• Subsea tooling for pipeline repair, salvage, and offshore work

• Integrated sensor and monitoring platforms

Where the Coverage Gaps Appear

The failure points that show up most often when specialized equipment is involved in a claim:

• Inland marine floaters whose electronic sublimits don't reflect the value of sophisticated systems

• Hull policies that exclude equipment not permanently installed on a scheduled vessel

• Marine equipment floaters that exclude waterborne operation the moment the equipment enters the water

• GL policies that don't address liability from operating unmanned or remotely operated systems

How to Approach Scheduling on Marine Accounts

When an account includes equipment that doesn't fit standard categories, the question isn't which existing form covers it. It's how to structure coverage around the equipment's operating environment and value. Before placing or renewing:

1. Inventory the equipment and what it does. Not just make, model, and value, but where it operates and what happens when it fails. Equipment that works in multiple environments needs coverage that follows it across all of them.
   
   
2.  Identify each form covering it, and what each excludes. A piece of equipment that appears covered often isn't, once the exclusions are read carefully.
   
   
3.  Check for third-party liability the GL doesn't address. Systems operating near infrastructure or on third-party vessels can create scenarios standard GL forms weren't written to handle.
   
   
4.     Bring the account to a marine specialist before binding. Standard carriers write what they're comfortable with and exclude the rest. A marine MGA can structure coverage that doesn't leave gaps at the edges of what standard forms will write.

If you're working a marine contractors account with equipment that doesn't fit cleanly into standard categories, that's a submission worth bringing to us before renewal.

Have an account you'd like us to look at?
Reach us at Ask@LIGMarine.com or call (727) 578-2800.
Send submissions to Submit@LIGMarine.com or visit LIGMarine.com/Apps.

The Renewal That Turned Into a Coverage Audit

Why inherited commercial marine accounts deserve a closer look, and how marine package programs fix the coverage gaps piecemeal placements leave behind.

The account had been placed by the previous agent over several years, one policy at a time. Hull coverage with one carrier. Marine General Liability (MGL) with another. Property through a standard market. Workers’ Comp (WC) with a third carrier. An umbrella placed separately. On paper, it looked complete.

When the new agent took over at renewal and started asking questions, the picture changed. The hull policy excluded coverage while vessels were out of the water for maintenance. The MGL had a watercraft exclusion that applied to owned vessels. The property policy covered the building and equipment but had a sublimit for docks and piers that hadn't been updated in six years. And the umbrella didn't follow form over the MGL because the underlying forms didn't meet the umbrella carrier's requirements.

Nobody had done anything wrong. Each policy had been placed in good faith. But they had never been designed to work together, and the gaps between them were significant. A fuel spill during a haul-out would have exposed the account to uninsured liability from three different directions simultaneously.

The agent brought the account to LIG, a commercial marine MGA with access to coordinated marine package programs built for exactly this situation. A marine package program replaced the patchwork, the coverage gaps closed, and the premium came in lower than the sum of the separate policies.

Download our Marine Package Program Field Guide

Why Piecemeal Commercial Marine Placements Create Coverage Gaps

Standard markets place commercial marine risks the way they place everything else: one coverage at a time, each policy optimized for its own scope. That works for accounts where the exposures are simple and self-contained. It breaks down for waterfront business accounts where exposures overlap, interact, and change depending on what a vessel is doing and where it is at any given moment. The result is a marine insurance gap that nobody sees until a claim makes it visible.

The specific failure points that appear most often on inherited marine accounts:

• Watercraft exclusions on MGL policies that apply to vessels the client owns or operates, leaving a gap that neither the hull nor the P&I policies fill
• Property policies that sublimit or exclude docks, piers, and waterfront structures that represent significant value
• Hull policies with gaps during haul-out, maintenance periods, or transits not covered under the base form
• Umbrella policies that don't follow form over marine underlying policies, leaving excess exposure above the point where the umbrella attaches
• Marine workers' compensation and Longshore coverage that hasn't been reviewed since operations changed, with employees now qualifying for different jurisdictional coverage than what was originally placed
  
  

What a Marine Package Program Actually Does

A marine package program isn't just bundled coverage with a single premium. It's coordinated marine coverage designed to work as a system, with forms that coordinate across lines and limits that stack correctly. The practical difference shows up at claim time, when a loss triggers multiple coverages and the question becomes which policy responds and in what order.

On a properly structured marine package, that question has a clear answer. On a piecemeal placement, it often doesn't.

Marine package programs are particularly valuable on accounts that standard markets find difficult to place cleanly, and on commercial marine accounts that have grown beyond their original coverage structure. The accounts that benefit most:Mixed operations spanning vessel, waterfront, and land-based exposures

• Multiple coverage lines that need to coordinate at the edges
• Operations that have grown or changed since coverage was originally structured
• Accounts where the current premium is high relative to what an integrated program would cost
• Any account where nobody has reviewed how the policies interact since they were placed

How to Evaluate an Inherited Marine Account

Before renewing a marine account you've inherited, these questions are worth working through:

1. Does the MGL policy have a watercraft exclusion, and if so, what does it exclude? Owned vessel liability needs to be covered somewhere. If the hull policy doesn't pick it up and MGL excludes it, there's a gap.
2. How are docks, piers, and waterfront structures valued and covered? Sublimits set years ago often don't reflect current replacement costs.
3. Are there gaps in hull coverage during haul-out or maintenance? Many standard hull forms have restrictions that leave vessels exposed during the periods when they're most vulnerable to damage.
4. Does the umbrella follow form over all underlying marine policies? If the underlying forms don't meet the umbrella's requirements, the excess layer doesn't attach correctly.
5. Has the workforce structure changed since Longshore and WC were last reviewed? Operations that have expanded to include more vessel work may have employees who now qualify under different jurisdictional coverage.

If those questions reveal coordination problems, a commercial marine package program is worth exploring before renewing the account as-is. Hard-to-place marine risks and accounts with layered exposures are exactly what marine package programs are designed for, and a coordinated placement through a specialist MGA is often more competitive than the piecemeal alternative.

Not sure where to start? We put together a two-page field guide that walks through exactly what to look for on an inherited marine account, plus how the five core coverage lines work together in a package.

Download the Marine Package Program Field Guide

Have an account you'd like us to look at? Reach us at Ask@LIGMarine.com or call (727) 578-2800. Send submissions to Submit@LIGMarine.com or visit LIGMarine.com/Apps.

The $4.2M Fire That Standard GL Didn't Cover

A small shipyard was performing routine maintenance on a commercial fishing vessel—welding repairs, engine work, nothing unusual. During the welding, a spark ignited some residual fuel vapors. The resulting fire didn't just damage the vessel being repaired—it spread to two adjacent boats docked nearby. 

Total loss: $4.2 million across three vessels.

 The shipyard's general liability policy had a $2 million limit. The agent and the shipyard owner both assumed that would be adequate. Most projects were under $500K, and claims had been rare. But when they submitted the claim, they discovered the GL policy had a "care, custody, and control" exclusion that barred coverage for damage to vessels in the shipyard's possession.

 

The shipyard had no Ship Repairers Legal Liability (SRLL) coverage. They were liable for the full $4.2 million, with only $2 million in coverage that didn't even apply. The business filed for bankruptcy within six months.

 

The agent's question: "How was I supposed to know they needed SRLL?"

 

The answer: The shipyard was repairing vessels. That's exactly what SRLL is designed for—and exactly what standard GL explicitly excludes.

[Download the SRLL Checklist for Marine Accounts →]

What Ship Repairers Legal Liability Actually Covers

SRLL is a specialized marine coverage designed specifically for businesses that work on vessels they don't own. It covers damage to vessels (and usually their cargoes) while those vessels are in the insured's care, custody, or control.

What it typically covers:

- Physical damage to vessels being repaired, maintained, or serviced

- Damage caused by fire, explosion, sinking, or collision while the vessel is in care, custody & control

- Loss of vessel equipment or Cargo

What it doesn't cover:

- The insured's own vessels

- Faulty workmanship and the cost to repair/replace their work 

- Gradual deterioration or wear and tear

Why it matters:

Standard commercial general liability policies (Marine or Dry) exclude coverage for property in the insured's care, custody, or control. If your client works on vessels—even occasionally—and they damage one, MGL/GL won't respond. SRLL fills that gap.

Who Actually Needs SRLL (It's More Than Just Shipyards) 

When agents hear "Ship Repairers Legal Liability," they think of large commercial shipyards. But SRLL applies to anyone who works on vessels they don't own, regardless of business size or scope.

Traditional shipyards and boatyards

Facilities that haul out vessels, perform repairs, conduct surveys, or store boats. This is the obvious category, but agents sometimes miss it for smaller yards. 

Marine repair and maintenance contractors

Businesses that travel to vessels to perform work, including mobile mechanics, marine electricians, canvas and upholstery shops, marine HVAC technicians, divers performing hull cleaning or underwater inspections, canvas and rigging installers, and independent surveyors or technicians. If they are working on someone else's vessel, they need SRLL.

Marina operators who perform any vessel services

Marinas that just rent dock space probably don't need SRLL. But if they also provide repair services, maintenance, fueling, or haul-out services, they're exposed. Many marina policies include limited SRLL coverage, but it's often inadequate.

Marine contractors doing vessel-related work

Pile driving companies, dredging contractors, or marine construction firms that occasionally work on or near vessels. Even if vessel work is 10% of revenue, damage to a single vessel often exceeds that amount and can easily exceed total GL limits.

If your client's work involves physically touching, boarding, or working on vessels they don't own, SRLL should be part of the conversation.

 

Why SRLL Gets Missed (Even on Obvious Accounts) 

SRLL is one of the most frequently overlooked coverages in marine insurance, and it's usually not because agents are careless. It's because the exposure doesn't always announce itself clearly. 

The "We Mostly Do Land-Based Work" Problem

A marine contractor does dock construction, bulkhead repairs, and marine pile driving. Maybe 80% of their work is shore-based. But twice a year, they take on a project that requires them to work on or near vessels—barge-mounted equipment, vessel-based pile driving, or repairs to floating docks.

 

That limited vessel contact feels incidental, so SRLL gets skipped. Then they damage a vessel during one of those "occasional" projects, and there's no coverage.

The "The Vessel Owner Has Insurance" Problem 

Agents and clients often assume that if a vessel is damaged during repairs, the vessel owner's hull insurance will cover it. Sometimes that's true, but the hull insurer will almost always subrogate against the repair facility.

 

If the shipyard or repair business has no SRLL coverage, they're paying out of pocket for damages that should have been insured.

The "We've Never Had a Claim" Problem 

Many marine repair businesses operate for years without an SRLL claim. That's not because the exposure doesn't exist, it's because they've been lucky. When a claim does happen, it's usually catastrophic. Fire, sinking, major structural damage, these aren't $10K claims. They're often total losses that exceed standard GL limits by significant margins. 

Some clients push back on SRLL premium, and agents trying to keep the account competitive leave it out. But the cost of one uninsured SRLL claim will almost always exceed years of premium. This is coverage you buy hoping you never need it, and go bankrupt without if you do.

 

What to Do When a Client Pushes Back on SRLL 

When clients push back on SRLL premium, here is how to frame the conversation:

 

"Your general liability policy specifically excludes damage to vessels in your care, custody, or control. That's standard across all GL and most MGL policies. It's not a gap we can close by switching carriers.

 

If you damage a vessel during repairs—fire, sinking, collision while hauling out, anything—you're responsible for the full value of that vessel unless you have SRLL coverage. Even if the vessel owner's insurance pays for repairs, they'll come after you to recover the cost.

 

SRLL coverage protects your business from a single catastrophic event that could otherwise force you to close.”



Most clients who understand the actual exposure, especially when you quantify the potential loss, will agree to the coverage.

 

How to Identify SRLL Exposure Before It's a Problem 

If you're working with any account that involves vessel repair, maintenance, or services—shipyards, marine contractors, mobile mechanics, or any business that touches vessels they don't own—SRLL coverage needs to be addressed.

 

Don't assume the vessel owner's insurance handles it. Don't assume GL/MGL is adequate. And don't skip it because the client has never had a claim.

 

We've created a reality-check tool that helps you identify common SRLL exposure scenarios and determine when coverage is warranted.

 

[Download the SRLL Checklist for Marine Accounts →]

 

And if you're working with an account where SRLL exposure exists but you're not sure how to structure limits or address client pushback, we're happy to review it with you.

Jones Act Waivers and Foreign Seamen: The Liability Exposure No One Is Talking About

The headlines have been hard to miss: "Jones Act waiver reshapes U.S. oil trade as foreign tankers flood domestic routes." It sounds dramatic, and in some ways it is. But if you dig past the surface, the story is more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

Reports indicate that at least 60 waiver-approved shipments have been completed, with most heading to California, Florida, and Puerto Rico. What those headlines don't tell you is that this isn't 60 separate vessels making one-time runs. It's a smaller number of ships making repetitive voyages on the same domestic routes.

That distinction matters.

Why Repetition Changes the Legal Picture

In previous posts, I've covered how foreign seamen serving on foreign-flag vessels can potentially claim Jones Act protections when injured. The short version: U.S. courts have, in certain circumstances, extended Jones Act status to foreign nationals when the facts support it.

What we haven't seen yet is a case involving a foreign seaman injured on a vessel sailing under a Jones Act waiver, repeatedly, between two U.S. ports.

We have been unable to find any case law that directly addresses this scenario. But it's coming.

The Argument Plaintiff's Attorneys Will Make

Picture this in a courtroom: "Not only was my client injured on a vessel sailing directly between two U.S. ports -- but this vessel had been doing exactly that, over and over again, as part of an established pattern of commerce."

That's a more persuasive argument than a one-time voyage. Courts have historically looked at the totality of a vessel's operations when evaluating Jones Act claims. Repetition and pattern don't hurt that argument. They strengthen it.

The Coverage Question Nobody Is Asking

Here's the question that isn't getting enough attention: did the P&I programs on these vessels ever contemplate this exposure? Most foreign-flag vessel insurance programs are written with international trade in mind -- not repeated domestic coastwise voyages under a U.S. regulatory waiver. Whether Jones Act liability for injured seamen is actually covered under those programs is an open question -- and one worth raising with carriers now, before a claim forces the issue.

This Is a "When," Not an "If"

Given the volume of shipments being reported and the repetitive nature of these routes, it's not a matter of whether a Jones Act claim will emerge from this situation. It's a matter of when.

The frustrating reality is that resolution will take years -- this fact pattern has never been tested in court, and these cases move slowly. If and when the waivers end, no new exposure is created. But the voyages that have already occurred don't disappear from the record. Any seaman injured during this window still has a potential claim, and those cases will outlast the waivers by years.

Have questions about marine liability coverage or Jones Act exposure for your clients? Reach us at Ask@LIGMarine.com or call (727) 578-2800.

Ready to submit? Send accounts to Submit@LIGMarine.com or visit LIGMarine.com/Apps.

Follow us on LinkedIn for marine insurance insights and resources to help you navigate the risks on your book.

Ian Greenway

Before the First Storm of the Season: The Conversations You Should Have With Your Marine Clients Now

Hurricane season doesn't announce itself with much warning. One week, there's a tropical wave being monitored in the Atlantic. The next, it has a name, a track, and a wall of moratoriums behind it.

That's the moment agents don't want to be having coverage conversations for the first time.

The value of a proactive agent isn't measured when everything goes smoothly. It's measured when a storm is three days out, and a client calls with questions. The agents who proactively reached out in May are the ones clients remember, recommend, and stay with. They're also the ones with documented conversations and protected E&O.

Hurricane season officially opens June 1. For agents with marine accounts on their book, now is the right time to reach out, not because something is necessarily wrong, but because an informed client is a better-protected client, and that conversation is easier before a storm exists than after one does.

What the Conversation Should Cover

This isn't a coverage audit. It's an advisory check-in. A few topics worth raising with marine clients before the season gets underway:

How their deductible actually works in a named storm.
Most clients think about their standard deductible. Many don't realize that a separate, often significantly higher deductible applies when the cause of loss is a named storm. On a percentage basis, a named storm deductible on a large vessel, a marina facility, or a waterfront operation can represent a substantial out-of-pocket exposure. Walking a client through what that number actually looks like in dollars, relative to their current insured values, is the kind of conversation they remember.

Why the timing window is shorter than they think.
Once a storm is being actively tracked, carriers issue moratoriums. New policies, endorsements, and coverage changes stop. If a client has added a vessel, expanded their operation, or made any changes since their last renewal, the time to address those is now, not when a named storm is already in the Gulf. Agents who flag this proactively are doing their clients a genuine service.

Vessel securing obligations.
Hull and Machinery policies typically include a sue and labor clause that obligates the insured to take reasonable steps to prevent or minimize a covered loss. Many clients aren't aware this exists. A brief conversation about securing protocols, what reasonable preparation looks like for their specific vessels, and why documentation matters is worth having before it becomes relevant.

Workforce exposure for applicable accounts.
For marine contractors, shipyards, and vessel operators, the days before and after a named storm are among the most active and highest-risk periods for workers. Employees securing vessels, staging equipment, or performing post-storm recovery on or near navigable water may be in Longshore jurisdiction. If an agent hasn't confirmed that coverage is in place and appropriately structured for storm operations, this is the time to do it.

The E&O Angle

Proactive client communication is one of the most effective E&O protections an agent has. A documented conversation in May that confirms a client understands their named storm deductible, knows what their securing obligations are, and has been made aware of moratorium timing is a very different position to be in than one where none of that was discussed before a loss occurred.

LIG is here to support those conversations. If a review surfaces accounts that need a closer look before the season opens, we're ready to help.

Questions about a specific account? Reach us at Ask@LIGMarine.com or call (727) 578-2800.
Ready to submit? Send accounts to Submit@LIGMarine.com or visit LIGMarine.com/Apps.

Follow us on LinkedIn for marine insurance insights and resources to help you navigate the risks on your book.

 

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