U.S DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

EMPLOYMENT STANDARbs ADMINISTRATION 

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs \X'ashington, D.C 

June 6, 1975 NO. 21 

NOTICE TO INSURANCE CARRIERS, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYERS 

UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'$ COMPENSATION ACT, AND OTHER 

INTERESTED PARTIES 

'.W2ll 

Subject: Application of Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' 

Compensation Act to Recreational Boat Builders 

and Marinas 

This notice is to inform interested parties regarding the 

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs' position with 

regard to coverage of recreational boat builders and 

marinas under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' 

Compensation Act, as amended. 

Publication of this notice is intended to respond to 

numerous letters and inquiries this Office has received on 

the subject. The material submitted by interested persons 

has been reviewed in conjunction with an analysis of the 

statutory provisions and the legislative history of the 

1972 Amendments. 

Several decisions have·been issued by the Benefits Review 

Board interpreting the landward extension of coverage, and 

it is our conclusion that recreational boat builders and 

marinas are subject to the provisions of the Act, except 

in certain instances which will be outlined in this notice. 

Section 2(~) of the Longshore Act states the Act applies 

to any employer who has employees, any of whom "are employed 

in maritime employment, in whole or in part, upon the 

navigable waters of the United States". However, the 1972 

Amendments extended ''navigable waters" to include ". • . any adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, 

marine railway, or other adjoining area customarily used 

by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing or building 

lnciudt J(J1lr addrus, ZlP codt~ and filt nutn6tr r.m ail Caf'Ttspondena 
-2-

a vessel". 

An "employee" is defined as: 

"Any person engaged in maritime employment including 

any longshoreman or other person engaged in longshoring operations, and any harbor worker including 

a ship repairman, a ,c;hip builder, and shipbreak,er, 

but such term does not include a master or member of 

a crew of any vessel, or any person engaged by the 

master to load or unload or repair any small vessel 

under eighteen tons net." · 

Recreational Boat Builders 

It has been the opinion of some that Congress only intended to include the employer.sand employees engaged in 

the construction of large commercial vessels under the 

provisions of the Act. However, the legislative history 

-contains no reference to a distinction in coverage between 

re;:reational boats and commercial vessels. Furthermore, 

the Supreme Court held in 1941 that an employer which 

"sold smc.ll boats, maritime supplies, and outboard motors" 

was engaged in maritime activities (Parker v. Motor Boat 

Sales, 314 U.S. 244). Thus, the use of the term "shipbi;ulder" in section 2 (3) and "building a vessel" in sections 

2(4) and 3(a) can lead to no other conclusion than that 

Congress extended the Act to cover all persons engaged in 

building vessels. While the Benefits Review Board has not 

yet ruled on this issue, it has recognized the role of 

employees engaged in building vessels as being engaged in 

maritime employment (Gilmore v. Weyerhaeuser Co., BRB No. 

74-141 and Herron v. Brady Hamilton Stevedoring Company, 

BRB No. 74-171). 

As pointed out earlier, the term "navigable waters" has 

been extended to include adjoining areas customarily used 

by employers in building or repairing vessels. In this 

connection the Benefits Review Board has "refused to give 

a narrow hypertechnical and limited construction to the 

definition of 'adjoining area' as set forth in section 3(a) 

of the Act" (Herron case). The Board has also stated that 
-3-

t_he distance from navigable waters where work is performed 

does not determine coverage, but rather all circwnstances 

of employment (Perdue v. Jacksonville Shipyards Inc., 

BRB No. 74-200). The Federal Courts will eventually 

decide the extent of an "adjoining area". However, we do 

not feel that Congress intended to extend coverage to 

facilities located "far distances from the water• s edge.•• 

Some of the correspondence received attempted to show there 

is a difference between "ships" and "boats", as indicated 

in the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971. However, we must 

look to the intent of Congress and the statutory language 

of the Longshore Act. As we have pointed out no distinction 

is made. Therefore, we must look to the definition of 

"employee". The Parker case (1974) cited earlier clearly 

established that the setvicing of a small pleasure craft 

was maritime activity, and subject to the provisions of the 

Act. Thus, with the landward extension of coverage, an 

employee engaged in repairing or building small pleasure 

crafts would certainly be subject to the same criterion. 

The Longshore Act was amended in 1972 to remove the 

inequities and inconsistencies that occurred because the 

Act did not cover employees injured on land, even though 

they were engaged in similar activities. Thus, an employee 

engaged in repairing or building a vessel, regardless of 

its size, (provided the employee was not engaged by a 

master to repair a vessel under eighteen tons net --

excluded under section 3(a)(l)) will now be entitled to 

benefits under the Longshore Act if his injury occurred 

within the expanded area of "navigable waters in the United 

States". 

Marinas 

Employees of marinas engaged in recreational marine service 

operation in areas adjoining navigable waters are also 

entitled to benefits under the Longshore Act if the injury occurred within this expanded area of "navigable 

waters". Prior to the 1972 Amendments marina employees 

were entitled to benefits under the Act, provided the injury 

occurred upon navigable waters. It is a natural progression 

that if longshoremen and shipbuilders (repairmen) are covered 

while injured in an adjoining area, marina employees are also 

covered when injured in adjoining areas. 
-4-

By expanding the definition of "navigable waters" Congress 

expanded coverage inward from the water's edge. Therefore, 

anyone covered by the Act prior to the 1972 Amendments, 

"must indeed be permitted to come within its protection 

subsequent to the Amendments" {Gilmore v. Weyerhaeuser). In 

addition any employee engaged in maritime employment who is 

injured while working in an adjoining area would be covered 

by the amended statute. 

It has been contended that the Act only applies to persons 

engaged in "loading,. unloading, building or repairing a 

vessel". However section 2(3) is clear that an "employee 

means any .person engaged in maritime employment". 

There is some misunderstanding about the limitation of coverage 

in section J(a) (1). This section provides that no compensation 

is payable for the injury or death of "any person engaged by 

a master to load or unlo~d or repair any vessel under eighteen 

tons net." The purpose of this exception is to relieve the 

owner of a small vessel of the responsibility for injuries 

under the Act sustained by individuals who are employed directly 

by the master to load or unload or repair the vessel. This 

limitation does not apply to individuals employed by an independent contractor to perform work on a vessel. It was the 

intent of Congress to protect the owners of small vessels when 

the master might employ someone without the owner's knowledge 

or consent. 

we have thus concluded that recreation~l boatbuilders and 

marinas are "employers" within the meaning of section 2(4) 

of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. 

We recognize that there are cases where employees of these 

employers may not be in fact engaged in maritime employment 

and would not be covered under the provisions of the Act. These 

cases must be resolved on a case-by-case basis thru the adjudicatory process. 

Workers' compensation departments and field representives who 

service workers' compensation claims under the Longshore Act 

and employers should be advised through information channels 

as to our position as espoused in this notice. 

~-J, t/Y- /1. .?t-/ J: 

HERBERT A. DOYLE, JR. 

Director, Office of Workers' 

Compensation Programs