Understand the core inquiry
The Supreme Court's Chandris decision describes two central requirements: duties contributing to a vessel's function or mission, and a connection to a vessel in navigation or identifiable vessel group that is substantial in nature and duration. The inquiry is fact-sensitive and later decisions refine its application. A percentage of time alone is not a reliable self-classification tool. Vessel status, employment history and the character of the work must also be considered.
Record the real working arrangement
Document which vessels employees serve, who owns or controls them, the length and purpose of assignments and whether workers routinely move between shore and vessel jobs. Explain crew responsibilities, maintenance duties and construction activities. Distinguish an established vessel assignment from a brief visit or occasional service call. For employees working across multiple customers' vessels, identify those relationships rather than assuming all vessels form one legally relevant fleet. Counsel can then evaluate the facts against governing law.
Coordinate employer and vessel insurance
Once the potential seaman exposure is identified, review the employer's maritime liability coverage and the vessel owner's or operator's P&I arrangements. Separate corporate entities, labor suppliers and charterers may have different roles. Discuss contractual indemnities, borrowed-worker arrangements and excess insurance without assuming that one party's policy protects all others. Revisit the analysis when project staffing or vessel assignments change. An insurance submission should disclose uncertainty and operational detail, not resolve a legal issue through an unsupported label.
Questions worth asking
Does spending a particular percentage of time aboard guarantee seaman status?
No. Time is part of the analysis, but the substantial nature of the connection and other legal requirements also matter.
Does a shore-based job title rule out seaman status?
No. Courts examine actual duties and vessel connections rather than relying only on the title.
Official references
Sources support the related legal or safety topic. Policy review points are general educational guidance.
Supreme Court: Chandris v. Latsis ↗Supreme Court: Harbor Tug and Barge v. Papai ↗