My comapny does scientific studies in and around inland lakes and
rivers.  This work involves fish sampling, diving, manuevering small
boats, etc.  We've got both commercial and professional liability
coverage, as well as Longshoreman & Harbor workers insurance (USL&H)
through a state Marine Industry Fund program.  We also have separate
Worker's Compensation coverage through the same state.  Since our
employees are running these small boats, do we also neeed Jones Act
coverage? How does Jones Act insurance differ from the other coverages
I already have?

Dear escience_oh-ga;

Thank you for allowing me to answer your interesting question. As you
will note from our disclaimer (below) we are prohibited from offering
legal advice in this forum. I can, however point out published law and
offer my opinion of its intent based on the research.

Here?s how they differ:

The Jones Act (The Merchant Marine Act) provides seamen with the
ability to seek benefits known as "maintenance and cure" when they are
injured as a result of their employer's negligence while working on US
Flagged vessels. The intent of this Act appears to extend to those
working primarily as a seaman on navigable waterways.

GUIDES: JONES ACT
http://www.cargolaw.com/guides_jones_act.html

The Longshore and Harbor Worker?s Compensation Act, on the other hand,
appears to extend adequate coverage in ?most? circumstances to those
working in both land-based and maritime positions:

TITLE 33 NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
CHAPTER 18
LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT
§ 903. Coverage 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, compensation shall
be payable under this Act in respect of disability or death of an
employee, but only if the disability or death results from an injury
occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States (including
any adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, marine
railway, or other adjoining area customarily used by an employer in
loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel).
US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/owcp/lhwca.htm#903

The United States Department of Labor Law Library indicates that
someone in your situation would best be covered under the state
Worker?s Compensation rather than Jones or LHWCA. You will note that
this information comes directly from the guide used by Judges in
determining the efficacy of LHWCA claims ? you won?t find a more
authoritative source than that.

In the opening paragraph of the guide the handbook says:

?When considering the concept of "coverage" under the Longshore and
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 901 et. seq.,
it must be kept in mind that employment is best thought of as a linear
continuum with three major groupings. First, there will be situations
where the employment will not be considered "maritime" at all, and
therefore, not covered under the LHWCA. (Such employment would more
properly be covered under a state workers' compensation system.)
Second, there will be the situation where the claimant is a
longshore/harbor worker or other "maritime" worker and, thus, is
clearly covered under the LHWCA. Third, there will be situations where
the employment is maritime in nature, but the worker is more properly
classified as a seaman attached to a vessel and entitled to a recovery
under the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act). 46 U.S.C. § 688.?

United States Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges Law Library
JUDGES' BENCHBOOK:
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act
http://www.insuremarine.com/WC/DOLlongshore.html

It appears then that the test for the Jones Act is to determine
whether or not the injured party is a ?seaman? or a ?longshoreman?.
This was heard in the case of Becker v Tidewater, 335 F3d 376 (5th Cir
2003).
http://www.irmi.com/Expert/Articles/2003/Orlando09.aspx

You will note in the summary of that hearing the reference to
Chandris, Inc., v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 115 S.Ct. 2172 (1995), which
stated ?a worker who spends less than about 30 percent of his time in
the service of a vessel in navigation should not qualify as a seaman
under the Jones Act.? With that in mind I suspect in your case that
the theoretical party is neither a ?seaman? or a ?longshoreman? as
defined by this landmark case (unless he spends more than 30% of his
time at sea), and is therefore adequately covered by your state?s
Worker?s Compensation. As per our usual legal disclaimer, I recommend
you contact at attorney or the Department of Labor for a certain
clarification.

I hope you find that my answer exceeds your expectations. If you have
any questions about my research please post a clarification request
prior to rating the answer. Otherwise I welcome your rating and your
final comments and I look forward to working with you again in the
near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.

Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher



INFORMATION SOURCES

?The Jones Act should not be confused with the Longshoremen's and
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, which is a Federal statute that
defines the workers' compensation rights of dockside employees whose
work affects shipping upon navigable waters. The Death on the High
Seas Act governs remedies for the surviving kin of sailors who die on
the job.?
WIKIPEDIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Act_(sailor_rights)


SEARCH STRATEGY


SEARCH ENGINE USED:

Google ://www.google.com


SEARCH TERMS USED:

WORKER?S COMPENSATION 

MARITIME 

INJURY 

DISABILITY 

COMPENSATION 

JONES ACT 

LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 

LHWCA

I'm please to get such a direct and informative answer.  The second to
last paragraph helps tie together a lot of information and clarify the
intent of several complex rulings and case law.  Thanks