Thursday, June 10, 2010

Cleanup Part Two?

According to Fox news, Foreign companies possessing some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships say they are being kept out of efforts to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf because of the Jones Act – But this time not the part that is used so often in Marine Insurance that allows injured seaman to sue, but the protectionist part of the law that requires vessels working in US waters be built in the US and be crewed by US workers.

Joseph Carafano of the Heritage Foundation has been studying the matter and wonders, “Are we accepting all the international assistance in the maritime domain that we can, and is the Jones Act an impediment to that?”

“Some of the best clean up ships – owned by Belgian, Dutch and the Norwegian firms are NOT being used” according to Coast Guard Lt. Commander, Chris O’Neil, because they do not meet “the operational requirements of the Unified Area Command.” One of those operational requirements is that vessels comply with the Jones Act.

"Yes, it does apply,” said O’Neil, “I have heard no discussions of waivers.”

Congress waived this part of the law after Katrina… is it time for another waiver?

For the full article go to http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/10/jones-act-slowing-oil-spill-cleanup/?test=latestnews

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Oil Spill Cleanup

There is no doubt that the cleanup work in the Gulf of Mexico will continue for months if not years and there are numerous businesses that are providing workers and/or equipment to help in the process. This posting serves to explain some of the issues in properly insuring these workers. I will break this down into Shoreline and Offshore/Vessel Based work.

SHORELINE
There are a limited number of carriers willing to look this exposure right now, especially for new clients and the approach can be different by carrier; most are rating all the shoreside exposure as Longshore (USL&H) and thus adding the appropriate Longshore class codes and endorsement to their policies.

In so far as classifications being used, again some will be different by carrier, the most common seem to be:

• 9402F - Cleaning rocks, sand or wildlife on the beach: rated as street cleaning

• 8602F Taking water or soil samples from the marshlands or the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico (not from a boat) Geological Scout.

• Any other work to clean up after the oil spill: Use the class code that describes the work performed with the F surcharge added.

However be aware of multistate exposures, many of the carrier who can write this exposure are state specific carriers and their policies DO NOT AND CANNOT provide Longshore Insurance coverage in neighboring states.. So that cleanup worker working fully covered in Louisiana today, will work without coverage if they move to Mississippi tomorrow if with one of these carriers.

We would also STRONGLY recommend adding Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) endorsement to ALL these operations.

OFFSHORE/VESSEL BASED
Work on/from vessels introduces another set of complications and need to be subdivided again into whether the vessels from are owned or chartered to their employer or not.

It is important here to remember that to qualify under Maritime Law (Jones Act etc) the employee must spend a “significant” portion of their time working from a vessel – the rule of thumb for most underwrites is 25%. Under that amount they will probably be considered Longshoreman. Nevertheless they should still be insured under P&I or MEL if only for defense costs.

OWNED/OPERATED VESSELS
Coverage here would be under the crew part of the vessels Protection and Indemnity (P&I) policy and should be added to this. Some underwriters may be reluctant to add this high hazard exposure and in that case you can look at either moving the Hull/P&I to someone who will OR simply using a separate MEL policy (see next section) to cover that part of the exposure.

OTHER PEOPLES VESSELS
This is typically covered under a Maritime Employers Liability (MEL) policy.
Some carriers can add the MEL to the WC/Longshore policy, but if you do that make sure the limit is $1mil as basic MEL only offers $25,000.
Alternately you can look at a monoline MEL policy, there you are often looking at a $25,000 minimum premium, a $10,000 or $25,000 deductible and a $1mil limit.For more information on MEL go to http://www.longshoretoolbox.com/Files/What_is_MEL.pdf

OTHER UNDERWRITING ISSUES• Clearly risks with a track history with the carrier OR in oil cleanup work (even if land based) are going to be much more acceptable. Build the credibility of your client with their detailed experience and background in cleanup work.

• Do not forget to add the MEL or P&I to your excess/umbrella coverage – the primary is likely to give you only $1mil limit.

• Occupational Disease is likely to be an issue for most underwriters and details of precautions taken might help. There have already been many reports of cleanup workers being taken to the hospital from this spill with a variety of symptoms and the litigation after the Exxon Valdiz spill went on for years.

• Contract details.. Most underwriters will want to see the details or headers in the contract under which they will be working… Who will they be contracting for? How long is the contract? Specific contractual requirements? Everyone understands that these contracts will probably be changed, renewed or extended, but clients without any contracts to offer will have a hard time obtaining coverage.

• What is the training/HAZMAT certification of the employees

• Do they have a drug free and safety program?

• Are the employees doing this work new hires? If so, what screening is there to ensure they can perform this long, hot, difficult work?

• If they are doing any vessel based work include details and sizes of the vessels from which they will work.

Clearly, the business that are new into this exposure will have to show more detailed plans to be successful in obtaining quality coverage from this limited market; even those with experience will need to build the detail. There is no question that this is high hazard work and proper affordable coverage is, in this case, more than ever built on quality, detailed submissions.

If you have clients that need this coverage send your submissions to SUBMIT@LIGMarine.com Questions? Send to ASK@LIGMarine.com

Friday, March 19, 2010

Longshore Blog Settings

Due to a small issue with our blog feed subscriptions all people who wish to continue to subscribe to the Longshore Blog should return to blog.LIGMarine.com and re-subscribe to the new feed address.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

-Mark

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Longshore “Once a Decade"

The Gowanus Gas Turbines electric generation facility in Brooklyn. The site, located on navigable waters in the Gowanus Canal includes four barges that are each 80 feet wide by 200 feet long that collectively house eight individual gas turbine generating units. While stationed, the barges are afloat in the bay and connected to a power grid. Approximately once a decade, the barges are moved to drydock for maintenance. They are also capable of being moved for the purpose of providing electric power at other locations. Two of the barges had been so moved on at least one occasion.

In 2000, Astoria/Orion (The owner of the facility) hired defendant Elliott Turbomachinery, Co., Inc. to perform an overhaul of the turbines at the Gowanus facility. In 2001, plaintiff, a millwright employed by Elliott, injured his back while performing work on a turbine on barge number one at the facility.

The question became is the barge still a vessel - according to the court a "'vessel' includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water" (Stewart v Dutra Construction Company, 543 US 481, 489 [2005], quoting 1 USC § 3). Structures temporarily stationed in a particular location maintain their status as vessels. However, floating structures that are "not practically capable of being used as a means of transportation" do not qualify as vessels. Such floating structures (non-vessels) are permanently fixed or moored "to shore or resting on the ocean floor".

Here, the barge, located on navigable waters in the Gowanus Bay, is a vessel within the LHWCA. The barges have been tugged on water approximately once a decade to a maintenance station and, at least once, to provide energy to another part of New York City in an emergency. Thus, the barge at issue is practically capable of being used as a means of transportation on water. Although the barge is stationed at the Gowanus facility, because it is not permanently anchored or moored, it has not lost its status as a vessel. Accordingly, the barge is a vessel under section 905(b). Thus the employee is entitled to Longshore Benefits.

Lee v. Astoria Generating Co., L.P.

Friday, November 13, 2009

7.7% Florida Marine Contractors Rate Drop Approved!

NCCI has filed a new set of rates to be effective January 1st 2010. These new rates have now been approved by the Florida Department of Financial Services, and show an overall rate decrease of 6.8%

The even better news for Florida Marine Contractors is that even after the 37% drop in 1.1.2007 and 19% on 1.1.2008, the proposed rates drop a further 7.7%! The proposed rate for 6006F for 2010 is just $12.58.

A MAMMOTH DROP OF 56% IN JUST 2 YEARS!

Since 2003, this group of employers has seen the largest drop of any class of businesses in Florida from rates back in 2003 of $61.65 to the proposed rate for 2010 of $12.58, a cut of ALMOST 80%.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

NC Longshore Rates

Quoted with the permission of NC Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin.

"Please see today’s news about the rate filing referenced in your post. Go to the link below:

http://www.ncdoi.com/media/news2/year/2009/110209.asp

I came across your blogpost several weeks ago.   You indicated that some longshoremen were concerned that they may be getting a fairly large average increase in loss costs (8.8% on average), while all other major categories of workers in North Carolina were receiving decreases on average of (-9.6%). Our staff here at the Department of Insurance looked into the details of the calculations, and persuaded the North Carolina Rate Bureau, which is not a State agency, to lower the average longshoreman increase to +1.6%.  In other words, the settlement ordered a 9.6 percent decrease to the voluntary market loss costs and no change (zero percent) to the assigned risk markets. "

Wayne Goodwin, NC Commissioner of Insurance. Nov 2nd 2009

Sunday, November 8, 2009

The Power of The Keyboard!

The September 6, 2009 post "NC Longshore Rates Rise?" highlighted the hidden rate increase for Waterfront employers in NC , buried within a rate cut for other NC employers.

I am delighted to advise that the blog was brought to the NC Insurance Commissioner's, Wayne Goodwin, personal attention and he instructed his staff to look into the details of the calculation, and then persuaded the NC Rating bureau to significantly lower this rise.

Details of the changes will be posted shortly, but Mr. Goodwin has issued an invitation to those of you who are on Facebook to sign onto to the NC DOI page or sign up for their RSS feeds at http://www.ncdoi.com/media/rss-feed_mediarelations.xml in order to keep up to date with the latest updates from their department.

This blog was designed to educate and inform, but now has the additional benefit of helping to put a significant amount of money back into the pockets of NC waterfront employers!

Kudos to Mr. Goodwin and his staff for making the effort to help our small sector of the market!

OK, which state is next?