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.

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

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.