A

The Jones Act is a federal statute that provides that a seaman injured in the course of his or her employment due to the negligence of the owner, master, or fellow crew member of the vessel can recover damages for the injuries; the act allows seamen to sue for damages suffered.

Now, the key points in answering your question are whether the employees are considered seamen, and whether the casinos are considered vessels.

There is no concrete definition in the Jones Act itself as to what a “seaman” is. Through the years, courts have established certain factors that can be used to decide the issue. Some of those factors are: the vessel on which the claimant is employed must be in navigable waters; the claimant must have a more or less permanent connection with the vessel; and the claimant must be aboard to aid in the navigation of the vessel. The U.S. Supreme Court attempted to clarify this a bit in a 1995 case. In Chandris v. Latsis, 115 S.Ct. 2172, the Supreme Court said that “a seaman must contribute to the function of the vessel and that his or her connection to a vessel must be substantial in both duration and nature.” These guidelines would have to be applied on a case by case basis, but bartenders, card dealers and gambling device operators, and others that “contribute to the function (gambling) of the vessel (casino)” can certainly be considered as seamen.

As for whether riverboat casinos are vessels, there are two court decisions that will help in making the determination. McAdow v. Promus Companies, Inc., 926 F. Supp. 93 (1996) and Pavone v. Mississippi Riverboat Amusement, Ltd., 52 F.3d 560 (1995) both dealt with an employee injury aboard a floating casino. Both cases propounded certain factors to be considered in determining if a floating casino is a vessel: was the structure constructed to be used as a work platform; is the structure moored or otherwise secured at the time of the accident; and, although the platform is capable of movement and is sometimes moved, is any transportation function merely incidental to the primary purpose of the structure? Using these factors, the courts in the McAdow and Pavone cases both decided floating casinos were not vessels with reference to the provisions of the Jones Act.

To help in answering your question, you have to determine if your insureds' casinos are moored permanently or do actually travel up and down or across navigable waters. A permanently moored riverboat casino will not be considered a vessel, while one that does usually travel (even short distances) from the shore will be deemed a vessel.

Be aware that the maritime coverage endorsement (WC 00 02 01) to the workers compensation and employers liability insurance policy will provide insurance coverage needed if employees are deemed “seamen” and can sue for damages. And, incidentally, endorsement WC 00 01 06 (the longshore and harbor workers compensation act coverage endorsement) can be used to provide workers comp benefits to employees other than seamen.