The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire recently addressed an interesting Special Fund question: whether the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) preempts New Hampshire’s state law establishing the priority in which payments will be made from the assets of a liquidated insurer.  The court determined that the state law was not preempted by the LHWCA. The Home Insurance Company was declared insolvent in 2003 by the New Hampshire Superior Court.  Liquidation was ordered and the United States Department of Labor filed a proof of claim seeking $2,600,000.00 in Special Fund assessments.  The DOL was assigned as a Class III priority, and it was believed that Class III claims would not be paid because of insufficient funds.  The DOL then filed the instant suit seeking its preemption declaration.  The goal was to move up to a Class I or Class II level in order to haveRead more

The United States Department of Labor issued a final rule implementing the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Act’s exclusion for recreational vessel workers.  The final rule, which becomes effective on January 30, 2012, excludes from the definition of “employee” those “[i]ndividuals employed to build any recreational vehicle under sixty-five feet in length, or individuals employed to repair any recreational vehicle, or to dismantle any part of a recreational vehicle in connection with the repair of such vessel….”  Further, the final rule defines the term “recreational vessel” by incorporating the United States Coast Guard’s standards for defining a recreational vehicle.  The definition focuses on the purpose of the vessel (i.e. is it used for pleasure or recreation?), but even a public vessel can be deemed recreational “at the time of repair, dismantling for repair, or dismantling, provided that such vessel shares elements of design and construction with traditional recreational vessels and isRead more

In Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981), the Supreme Court defined a vessel’s duty to longshoremen, holding that the vessel owner must provide work space, equipment, and tools in a condition that allows a stevedore, acting with reasonable care, to carry on his operations with reasonable safety.  The stevedore must be warned of hidden dangers that the owner knows or should know about in the exercise of reasonable care, but the owner does not have to monitor the stevedoring operations for dangerous conditions that develop during the work relationship unless the vessel owner becomes aware of the danger.  Courts have outlined three instances where vessel owner liability may be established in favor of the longshoreman: (1) if the vessel owner fails to warn on turning over the ship of hidden defects of which he should have known; (2) for injury caused by hazards underRead more

Claimant, a mechanic charged with repairing and maintaining containers and chassis brought to his employer’s facility by shipping companies, injured his left wrist while closing a container door.  Although Claimant received Florida workers’ compensation benefits, he asserted a claim for Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act benefits.  The employer controverted on the grounds that Claimant was not a maritime employee and he was not injured on a maritime situs.  The Benefits Review Board (“Board”) determined that Claimant held sufficient status to be a maritime employee, but that he was not injured on a maritime situs.  Claimant satisfied the maritime employee status question because his “regular work involved keeping the containers in good repair for use in maritime commerce….”  The fatal flaw in Claimant’s case, however, was the location of his work place.  It is located over three miles away from the employer’s Blount Island facility.  The Board determined that Claimant’s work place doesRead more