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