Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore... (1 Viewer)

[sfidc3]

Yeah I think the skiff workers would be Jones Act seamen. I would imagine that most construction companies working a project like on the bridge and that are meeting the skiff requirement are contracting for it through some marine support company that provides the skiff and crew.

Correct, the lines are sometimes blurry (if memory serves) but unless the work is being done adjacent to a pier, some kind of land structure it will likely be covered by the Jones Act....

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

Correct, the lines are sometimes blurry (if memory serves) but unless the work is being done adjacent to a pier, some kind of land structure it will likely be covered by the Jones Act....

It's very fact specific. Shore-based workers that are assigned skiff duty on Monday but are flagmen on the road or laying asphalt the rest of the week are likely not going to be Jones Act seamen.

Their attorneys will argue that they are so they can sue their employer rather than receive comp benefits but just being on a vessel does not necessarily make you a Jones Act seaman. Need to be more or less permanently assigned to a vessel (or fleet of vessels), etc.

 

[sfidc3]

It's very fact specific. Shore-based workers that are assigned skiff duty on Monday but are flagmen on the road or laying asphalt the rest of the week are likely not going to be Jones Act seamen.

Their attorneys will argue that they are so they can sue their employer rather than receive comp benefits but just being on a vessel does not necessarily make you a Jones Act seaman. Need to be more or less permanently assigned to a vessel (or fleet of vessels), regularly exposed to "perils of the sea", etc.

Agreed on the not likely part, but so much of it is situational....

Does the employer (or sub or whomever is held liable) have Jones Act coverage and does it apply in this instance (you are saying it most likely doesn't), if so.....the point is moot.....if not.....sue away......

 

[superchuck500]

Agreed on the not likely part, but so much of it is situational....

Does the employer (or sub or whomever is held liable) have Jones Act coverage and does it apply in this instance (you are saying it most likely doesn't), if so.....the point is moot.....if not.....sue away......

The only Jones Act employees in this hypothetical we're talking about (because they didn't have a skiff) would be those that actually "crew" the skiff . . . as opposed to some non-vessel worker that gets assigned to the be construction contact on the skiff that limited period of time (though that could be subject to argument depending on the length of time that person is assigned those duties). There's all sorts of intersting case law on seaman status.

But there wasn't a skiff here and if there was, there's no reason to think anyone on it would have been injured or killed.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Now that it's been a few weeks how is the traffic around that area?

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

The only Jones Act employees in this hypothetical we're talking about (because they didn't have a skiff) would be those that actually "crew" the skiff . . . as opposed to some non-vessel worker that gets assigned to the be construction contact on the skiff that limited period of time (though that could be subject to argument depending on the length of time that person is assigned those duties). There's all sorts of intersting case law on seaman status.

But there wasn't a skiff here and if there was, there's no reason to think anyone on it would have been injured or killed.

Yeah the only jones act claims in this entire incident belong to the crew of the MV DALI.

 

[superchuck500]

Yeah the only jones act claims in this entire incident belong to the crew of the MV DALI.

It's been a while since I did any of that, is the test still the Laurizen (sp?) factors? Is the location of the incident enough to ensure US/Jones Act coverage even though it's a foreign flag, foreign charter, foreign seamen, etc?

 

[efil4stnias]

It's very fact specific. Shore-based workers that are assigned skiff duty on Monday but are flagmen on the road or laying asphalt the rest of the week are likely not going to be Jones Act seamen.

Their attorneys will argue that they are so they can sue their employer rather than receive comp benefits but just being on a vessel does not necessarily make you a Jones Act seaman. Need to be more or less permanently assigned to a vessel (or fleet of vessels), etc.

to be clear- i was referring to the construction workers and the USL&H coverage

i mentioned Jones Act simply because when you get USL&H you also get Jones Act
( as they usually go hand in hand ) - there are instances where ive seen JUST USL&H coverage, but carriers are quite reluctant to remove one from the other since they can have an exposure not readily apparent at underwriting time.

 

[superchuck500]

to be clear- i was referring to the construction workers and the USL&H coverage

i mentioned Jones Act simply because when you get USL&H you also get Jones Act
( as they usually go hand in hand ) - there are instances where ive seen JUST USL&H coverage, but carriers are quite reluctant to remove one from the other since they can have an exposure not readily apparent at underwriting time.

So the bridge workers are longshoremen? I guess that makes sense (bridge of navigable waters). But L&H is still basically comp in that situation, right? Whereas Jones Act is litigation exposure.

Who knew we'd be going all wonky maritime worker status today.

We have a significant part of the port in Charleston that does nothing but load on vehicles from the BMW and Volvo plants in the state, mostly BMW (it's the largest BWM plant in the world). I always imagine those guys driving BMW after BMW on to ships every day wearing khakis and a polo shirt . . . being longshoremen.

 

[efil4stnias]

So the bridge workers are longshoremen? I guess that makes sense (bridge of navigable waters). But L&H is still basically comp in that situation, right? Whereas Jones Act is litigation exposure.

Who knew we'd be going all wonky maritime worker status today.

We have a significant part of the port in Charleston that does nothing but load on vehicles from the BMW and Volvo plants in the state, mostly BMW (it's the largest BWM plant in the world). I always imagine those guys driving BMW after BMW on to ships every day wearing khakis and a polo shirt . . . being longshoremen.

So the work comp policy is 2 parts, Med/Idemnity and Employer Liability Limits( i know you know this just breaking down ) . And i think they carbon copied ( if you will ) from USL& H and Jones Act ( same scenario kinda- USL&H for the med/indemnity- Jones act for the "employer liability" part )

So yeah the USL&H covers the "comp" and the Jones act the "e.l. " parts. ( as how i was taught- to simplify- but its NOT that simple as federal laws regarding this stuff is immense and why most insurance agents that handle maritime ONLY do maritime- they are way more versed in the workings than ill ever be ) Specialists - they have to be to properly advise clients.

My situations are different- carpenter who does work on yachts ( that are dry docked or dockside ) or the occasional sub who bids on and wins a job near water who has no idea what he just stepped into lol. ( and he won the bid because he didnt account for the increased WC cost of USL&H and Jones act coverage )

And i know here, if you work within 100' of navigable waters ( ton of that with Harvey canal, Intracostal and companies that have shops/warehouses etc along ) you fall under this. Same for bridges- i had a sub doing blasting work on GNO 20 years ago ( to prep for painting ) and had to get the USLH for the job.
IIRC - its "on/near/over" navigable waterways.

Yeah them polo shirted, khaki panted drivers are longshormen according to their WC carrier lolol.

 

[superchuck500]

So the work comp policy is 2 parts, Med/Idemnity and Employer Liability Limits( i know you know this just breaking down ) . And i think they carbon copied ( if you will ) from USL& H and Jones Act ( same scenario kinda- USL&H for the med/indemnity- Jones act for the "employer liability" part )

So yeah the USL&H covers the "comp" and the Jones act the "e.l. " parts. ( as how i was taught )

And i know here, if you work within 100' of navigable waters ( ton of that with Harvey canal, Intracostal and companies that have shops/warehouses etc along ) you fall under this. Same for bridges- i had a sub doing blasting work on GNO 20 years ago ( to prep for painting ) and had to get the USLH for the job.
IIRC - its "on/near/over" navigable waterways.

Yeah them polo shirted, khaki panted drivers are longshormen according to their WC carrier lolol.

I see what you mean. Because longshore coverage is scheduled workers comp, there's no liability issue - it's purely medical and indemnity based on the scheduled benefits. The liability piece comes in on the Jones Act side because the JA damages action is based on liability. Is that what you're saying?

And employers get both based on the unpredictability as to whether they might have Jones Act exposure based on the nature of the work? That's interesting. I would have imagined that many longshore employers can be fairly confident that they don't have Jones Act exposure.

 

[efil4stnias]

I see what you mean. Because longshore coverage is scheduled workers comp, there's no liability issue - it's purely medical and indemnity based on the scheduled benefits. The liability piece comes in on the Jones Act side because the JA damages action is based on liability. Is that what you're saying?

And employers get both based on the unpredictability as to whether they might have Jones Act exposure based on the nature of the work? That's interesting. I would have imagined that many longshore employers can be fairly confident that they don't have Jones Act exposure.

You can- and i have seen just USL&H - depending on the risk. The work done will determine USLH or Jones Act

For instance Stevedoring - ( loading and unloading ships ) will likely get just USL&H - vs say bulkhead construction contractor. ( who would get both since work would require being on barges/boats to construct at times )

But IIRC there really is no additional cost to having the Jones Act part, so it gets tossed in anyway. In my experience, add it just to make sure all bases covered, especially if there really is no additional cost ( or the cost is negligible ) Because as Mr. Sparkle noted, attorney will certainly attempt to make them "seamen" in the claim and i dont wanna be the guy who said " nah you really dont need that" lolol

its such a minefield and i rely HEAVILY on the underwriters when i come across any maritime risk ( i usually pass because it is such a niche market ) i know you dont want to classify someone as USL/H and they are actually Jones Act ( and vice versa ) -

 

[bigdaddysaints]

Yall putting everyone asleep..

 

[Sailorsaint]

I think the first issue to be solved should be tugs required until at least past the last bridge/obstruction, no exceptions.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

I think that unfortunately, this kind of stuff happens a lot more than we realize however, it is not in the media spotlight. Case in point was the summer of 2001. That was the "summer of the shark". It seemed like everyone was getting attacked by sharks. Shark attacks were actually higher in the summer of 2000 but there was no media coverage so life went on. The media grabs it in 2001 and now sharks are everywhere.

Fast forward to this unfortunate accident, you now have the media hunting down every single bridge, waterway incident.

This is true, sorta. I usually tell people that the problem with the marine business is not that we have a good reputation or a bad reputation, it's that we have NO reputation. The only time anyone ever hears about us is when there is a major casualty. Which is a shame because moving goods by water is the safest, most efficient mode (outside of moving liquids through a pipeline) and we should be putting as much as we can on barges and ships.

Its still an outdoor sport and, as we saw here, there are a lot of things that can go horribly wrong, but relative to the damage caused to life and property by trucks and railways, it the safest way to go and should be something we heavily invest in.

/end of commercial