The United States Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Act (AKA USL&H) is a federal law that provides benefits to workers who were injured in certain occupations having to do with dock workers and other maritime jobs.
Twenty years ago we worried about incidental workers on docks - florists and pizza delivery people for example - who would go onto docks or ships occasionally but whose job was not really maritime. The law then (as I recall) was changed so that the current rules exclude from coverage:
(A) individuals employed exclusively to perform office clerical, secretarial, security, or data processing work;
(B) individuals employed by a club, camp, recreational operation, restaurant, museum, or retail outlet;
(C) individuals employed by a marina and who are not engaged in construction, replacement, or expansion of such marina (except for routine maintenance);
(D) individuals who (i) are employed by suppliers, transporters, or vendors, (ii) are temporarily doing business on the premises of an employer described in paragraph (4), and (iii) are not engaged in work normally performed by employees of that employer under this Act;
(E) aquaculture workers;
(F) individuals employed to build, repair, or dismantle any recreational vessel under sixty-five feet in length;
(G) a master or member of a crew of any vessel; or
(H) any person engaged by a master to load or unload or repair any small vessel under eighteen tons net;
if individuals described in clauses (A) through (F) are subject to coverage under a State workers' compensation law.
So, based on the above, a florist delivering flowers to a dock-worker is not eligible for USL&H benefits (though they are eligible for state workers' compensation benefits).
I was recently talking with a agent who insisted that his bank clients needed USL&H coverage in case a loan officer wandered onto a dock and got hurt. As I argued, he brought up the fact that the premium was about $300 on a bank that spends over $100,000 a year on insurance.
The wind went right out of my sails.
However, should the bank even spend $300 on this? If there is never a claim, the bank spent $3,000 over ten years. If there is a claim, I hope a judge would hand an attorney his head for even trying to subvert what I think is pretty clear language (above). However, lawyers are creative and judges continue to astound.
What's the right answer?
Twenty years ago we worried about incidental workers on docks - florists and pizza delivery people for example - who would go onto docks or ships occasionally but whose job was not really maritime. The law then (as I recall) was changed so that the current rules exclude from coverage:
(A) individuals employed exclusively to perform office clerical, secretarial, security, or data processing work;
(B) individuals employed by a club, camp, recreational operation, restaurant, museum, or retail outlet;
(C) individuals employed by a marina and who are not engaged in construction, replacement, or expansion of such marina (except for routine maintenance);
(D) individuals who (i) are employed by suppliers, transporters, or vendors, (ii) are temporarily doing business on the premises of an employer described in paragraph (4), and (iii) are not engaged in work normally performed by employees of that employer under this Act;
(E) aquaculture workers;
(F) individuals employed to build, repair, or dismantle any recreational vessel under sixty-five feet in length;
(G) a master or member of a crew of any vessel; or
(H) any person engaged by a master to load or unload or repair any small vessel under eighteen tons net;
if individuals described in clauses (A) through (F) are subject to coverage under a State workers' compensation law.
So, based on the above, a florist delivering flowers to a dock-worker is not eligible for USL&H benefits (though they are eligible for state workers' compensation benefits).
I was recently talking with a agent who insisted that his bank clients needed USL&H coverage in case a loan officer wandered onto a dock and got hurt. As I argued, he brought up the fact that the premium was about $300 on a bank that spends over $100,000 a year on insurance.
The wind went right out of my sails.
However, should the bank even spend $300 on this? If there is never a claim, the bank spent $3,000 over ten years. If there is a claim, I hope a judge would hand an attorney his head for even trying to subvert what I think is pretty clear language (above). However, lawyers are creative and judges continue to astound.
What's the right answer?
No comments:
Post a Comment