Jack-up drilling rigs occupy a unique position in maritime law—sometimes qualifying as vessels, sometimes not, depending on their operational status and the specific legal question at issue. This uncertainty significantly affects the rights of workers injured on jack-up rigs and the legal remedies available to them. Understanding how courts analyze jack-up rig vessel status helps workers and employers navigate these complex determinations.
What Is a Jack-Up Rig
A jack-up rig is a mobile offshore drilling unit consisting of a barge-like hull that can be towed from location to location. Once positioned, the rig's legs are lowered to the seabed and the hull is elevated above the water surface to create a stable drilling platform. This dual nature—sometimes floating, sometimes fixed—creates the vessel status questions that complicate maritime injury claims.
Jack-up rigs differ from fixed platforms, which are permanently attached to the seabed and clearly not vessels. They also differ from semi-submersibles and drillships, which remain floating throughout operations and more clearly qualify as vessels. Jack-up rigs move between these categories depending on their operational phase.
The offshore drilling industry relies heavily on jack-up rigs for operations in shallower waters. Workers assigned to these rigs may or may not qualify as Jones Act seamen depending on how courts analyze the rig's vessel status and the worker's connection to it.
The Vessel Status Test
The Supreme Court established in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach that a vessel is a structure used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water. Courts apply this definition to determine whether jack-up rigs qualify as vessels, examining the rig's purpose, design, and use.
Jack-up rigs are designed and used primarily as drilling platforms, not as transportation. However, they must move from location to location to serve their drilling function. Courts have split on whether transportation capability alone satisfies the vessel definition or whether the primary purpose must be transportation.
The analysis often turns on the rig's status at the time of injury. A jack-up rig floating under tow is more likely to qualify as a vessel than one with legs on the seabed and hull elevated. Some courts examine vessel status at the moment of injury; others consider the rig's general operational character.
Circuit Court Approaches
Federal circuit courts have taken different approaches to jack-up rig vessel status, creating geographic variations in the law. The Fifth Circuit, covering the Gulf of Mexico region where most offshore drilling occurs, has addressed these questions frequently.
Some circuits focus on whether the jack-up rig was in navigation at the time of injury. Under this approach, a rig with legs on the seabed functions as a fixed platform and does not qualify as a vessel, even though it will float again when moved. Workers injured during this phase may be denied Jones Act coverage.
Other circuits examine the rig's overall character and purpose, finding that structures designed to move periodically maintain vessel status throughout their operations. Under this approach, the rig's temporary attachment to the seabed does not defeat vessel status because movement is integral to its function.
Impact on Seaman Status
Even if a jack-up rig qualifies as a vessel, workers must separately satisfy the seaman status test. They must contribute to the vessel's function and have a substantial connection to the vessel in navigation. The rig's uncertain vessel status complicates both elements.
Workers permanently assigned to a jack-up rig that spends most of its time jacked up may lack substantial connection to a vessel in navigation even if the rig technically qualifies as a vessel. Courts may find that the rig is not in navigation during extended drilling operations when legs are on the seabed.
Workers who participate in the rig's movement—including jacking operations, tow preparations, and transit—may have stronger claims to seaman status. Their connection to the rig's transportation function supports both vessel status and the substantial connection requirement.
Alternative Remedies for Jack-Up Rig Workers
Workers denied Jones Act coverage due to jack-up rig status issues may have claims under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. LHWCA extends to workers on the Outer Continental Shelf through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, providing no-fault benefits.
Unseaworthiness claims may remain available even when Jones Act claims are denied. General maritime law unseaworthiness does not require seaman status; longshoremen and other maritime workers may pursue these claims when injured by defective conditions on vessels.
State workers compensation borrowed under OCSLA may provide benefits to jack-up rig workers in some circumstances. The specific coverage depends on the rig's location, the worker's duties, and which state's law applies through OCSLA.
Evidence in Jack-Up Rig Cases
Proving vessel status for jack-up rigs requires detailed evidence about the rig's design, operation, and the worker's duties. Rig specifications, operational logs, and move records document the rig's navigation history and time spent floating versus jacked up.
Employment records showing the worker's participation in rig moves strengthen seaman status claims. Workers who assist with jacking operations, rig preparation for tow, and other movement-related duties demonstrate connection to the rig's transportation function.
Expert testimony often helps courts understand jack-up rig operations and how they compare to traditional vessels. Naval architects, maritime industry experts, and drilling operations specialists can explain the rig's characteristics and the worker's role.
Floating Production and Storage Units
Floating production storage and offloading vessels (FPSOs) and similar units present related but distinct vessel status questions. Unlike jack-up rigs, these units remain floating throughout operations, which typically supports vessel status. However, their primary purpose is production rather than transportation.
Workers on floating production units may have stronger Jones Act claims than jack-up rig workers because the unit maintains vessel characteristics throughout operations. The continuous floating status removes the temporal element that complicates jack-up rig analysis.
Semi-submersible drilling rigs also remain floating, supporting vessel status arguments. Workers on these rigs generally have clearer paths to Jones Act coverage than workers on jack-up rigs, though seaman status still requires the standard connection analysis.
Strategic Considerations
Workers injured on jack-up rigs should preserve evidence of both vessel status and seaman status from the outset. The uncertain legal status of jack-up rigs means workers may need to pursue multiple theories and be prepared for vessel status litigation.
Employers and rig owners may contest vessel status to avoid Jones Act liability. Workers should anticipate these defenses and gather evidence of the rig's navigation history, their participation in moves, and the rig's general maritime character.
The geographic location of the injury may affect which circuit's law applies, which in turn affects how vessel status is analyzed. Workers should consult maritime attorneys familiar with the applicable circuit's approach to jack-up rig cases.
Conclusion
Jack-up rig vessel status remains unsettled in maritime law, with different courts applying different analyses. Workers injured on jack-up rigs face uncertainty about whether Jones Act protections apply, requiring careful analysis of the rig's operational status and the worker's connection to its transportation function. Understanding these issues helps workers preserve evidence and pursue all available remedies under the applicable legal framework.