Security Guards Now Longshore

In K.L. v. Blue Marine Security BRB No. 08-0789 (Apr. 16, 2009) the BRB was asked to review whether Claimant was excluded from coverage under Section 2(3)(A) of the Act, as the statute expressly excludes from coverage "individuals employed exclusively to perform office clerical, secretarial, security, or data processing work" .

The Board held in this case that Claimant was not excluded from the Act's coverage because he was not exclusively performing "office" security work. The Board determined that there was substantial evidence to support that Claimant was not working in an office or administrative space, but was instead working on a vessel subject to various marine hazards. It further determined that the exclusions in Section 2(3)(A) were intended by Congress to be interpreted narrowly, and noted that Claimant "was not confined, physically and by function, to an office or other administrative area on land." It thus found that Claimant "is not the type of security officer intended to be excluded pursuant to Section 2(3)(A) as he was exposed to traditional maritime hazards." and thus was held to be covered under the Longshore Act.

This at first glace seems to fly in the face of  the act itself, but we now have a precedent that really says only Security guards who work EXCLUSIVELY in an office can now be excluded.   How many of those are there?

LONGSHORE REFORM 2009

It has finally happened. After 9 years Longshore reform has, at least in part, passed as part of the “Stimulus” package.

The change that passed amounted to a sentence or two out of the original six-page bill. Without the definitions and qualifications within the original bill, there are many questions. In addition, the immediate nature of the change left many scrambling for answers. Most of the answers available to date are collated in www.USLH.org including a simple matrix of who is and is not covered after the change.

In addition, we have updated www.LongshoreFactor.com to reflect the changes.

There is clearly more work to do… but this is a huge step forward for those who work repairing/servicing larger recreational vessels.

Why the stimulus bill? Whilst this was difficult to understand up front, it is now clear that this is the classic stimulus – it provides significant premium returns and savings in the LONGSHORE premium for the eligible employees. In fact Florida (which probably has the largest single number of eligible employers), will see savings of 55% of the Longshore premium for repair/service of recreational vessels. A significant amount in the pocket… even better, this is one of the few parts of the Stimulus Act that does not cost the American Taxpayer a dime. (Wish there were more?)

………………………………………………………………………..

So many Marine employers have now removed their significant exposure from LONGSHORE… but should they simply cancel LONGSHORE coverage? We say no.

Despite the change in the act, it is very dangerous to work without LONGSHORE coverage for three reasons:

1. You cannot take that great job on the commercial vessel when offered.

2. You will not have coverage for an attorney to defend you in the event one of you injured employees tries to challenge the change in the act and brings an action for LONGSHORE coverage.

3. You will not have defense costs OR coverage for an injured employee who tries to claim that the vessel they are working on was commercial in nature.

The good news is that virtually every LONGSHORE market out there is now offering an “incidental” LONGSHORE endorsement. The numbers vary from carrier to carrier, but most are looking at allocating a minimum of 1% of the payroll (ex sales/clerical) to Longshore subject to a $1,000 minimum. The better news is that this will only add a couple of hundred dollars or so to the bottom line of most policies and to me that is a bargain, even if it is only to provide the service of a specialty LONGSHORE attorney.

Recreational Marine Exemption

The long awaited expansion of the exemption for certain recreational marine employees under LONGSHORE might finally be in sight.

The Economic Stimulus bill recently passed by the U.S. House included a provision that would amend Section 2(3)(F) of the LONGSHORE and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33U.S.C.902(#)(F) by

(1) Striking ", repair, or dismantle"; and

(2) By Striking the semicolon and inserting ", or individuals employed to repair any recreational vessel in connection with the repair of such vessel;"

The amendment, if passed in the Senate, would not limit the length of the recreational vessel being repaired or dismantled but retains the 65 ft limit for boat builders/manufacturers. (See page 129 of the bill) and thus drastically expand the exclusion for employees repairing recreational vessels >65 ft

The full bill can be read at http://www.ligmarine.com/file/HR1.pdf

Welcome

Welcome to the LIG LONGSHORE blog. Information and opinions on the LONGSHORE & Harbor Workers Compensation Act Insurance and related topics.

LIG is the at the center of LONGSHORE Insurance and as such we have a unique perspective on this class.

This blog is an informal collection of observations and opinions on this sector and should not be considered legal advice or opinion in any way.

As an additional resource we offer www.Longshorefactor.com which is a quick way to determine if a risk has a LONGSHORE &/or Admiralty exposure.