Larry Naquin was a repair supervisor for Elevating Boats.  His job consisted of supervising repairs on EBI’s liftboats while they were docked shore-side, including inspections, cleaning, painting, and repairing parts.  Two or three times a week, he would work while the vessels were being moved.  Every once in a while, he would repair a vessel or act as a crane operator onboard the vessel.  As a shore-based ship repairman, Mr. Naquin was clearly covered under the LHWCA.

In Chandris v. Laskis, the Supreme Court held there are two requirements for a Jones Act seaman:  first, the seaman must contribute to the mission of the vessel.  Second, the seaman must have a connection to a vessel or fleet under common ownership or control.

The Fifth Circuit (Judge Davis) held that even though Mr. Naquin was clearly covered by the LHWCA, and even though LHWCA and Jones Act cover are mutually exclusive, Mr. Naquin was still a Jones Act seaman, following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Gizoni.  Judge Davis, with Judge Milazzo concurring, found Mr. Naquin met the test because his work cleaning and painting and operating cranes contributed to the mission of the vessel, and he did it for more than 30% of his work.  Furthermore, Mr. Naquin was subject to the perils of the sea even though his work largely on tied-up vessels.

Judge Jones issued a strong dissent.  She said Chandris reaches the strong conclusion that land-based workers are just not Jones Act seamen.  Mr. Naquin was a land-based employee.  She also found that work on boats tied up at the dock does not expose plaintiffs to perils of the sea.

The case may have perilous implications for anyone who operates a vessel repair facility–as long as the vessel or fleet of vessels are under common ownership or control, everyone who spends 30% or more of his or her time working on those vessels could be a Jones Act seaman.  This also has significant insurance coverage results if the vessel’s “crew” is much broader than the vessel owner might otherwise think.  The case is a likely target for appeal.

Author:  Harry Morse