Revisiting Maintenance and Cure: What is Reasonable Today?

In the current American economic climate, people across the US are facing increases in the cost of living in all aspects of life. Crewmembers are no exception. When a crewmember is injured in the service of the vessel, they are entitled to maintenance and cure to cover reasonable costs of food and lodging until they reach maximum cure. While employers may have a standard maintenance rate in place to issue prompt payment when a crewmember has been injured, it may be time to reconsider the reasonableness of that amount, particularly if it has been several years since you have done so. Case law over just the last six years serves as a timely reminder that time spent reconsidering what a standard rate looks like for your crew may very well prevent unnecessary legal costs.

The benchmark standard

The Jones Act entitles a US seaman to maintenance for injuries incurred while in service of the vessel until the point of maximum cure. In 2001, the Fifth Circuit decided Hall v. Noble Drilling (U.S.), Inc.,[1] which has served as a precedential benchmark for maintenance rate calculation. The court in Hall determined that a daily rate of $30 was reasonable in Mississippi at the time. However, what is more significant than the amount is the analysis the court presented in its calculation. The Fifth Circuit opined that a maintenance rate should include the reasonable cost of food and lodging for the seaman while they are on land and should reflect changes in the cost of living over time and between localities. The court also defined lodging as inclusive of expenses necessary for habitable housing, such as heat, electricity, home insurance and real estate taxes. In light of this analysis, the court’s $30 daily rate for maintenance fell in line with older court decisions when adjusted for inflation to cover lodging expenses.

The Fifth Circuit’s analysis in Hall has been relied upon for decades around the country. More recently in 2018, the Northern District of California applied Hall’s reasoning in United States ex rel. Zugsberger v. T.L. Peterson.[2] There, the court extended Hall's analysis of maintenance adjustment for inflation to date, and held that maintenance rates as low as $37 in one region of California and as high as $60 in another were reasonable for each of those localities.

In subsequent cases across the country, courts have uniformly opined that while the burden is on the seaman to present evidence of actual costs for the court to determine a maintenance award, it is indeed a “feather-light” burden. In 2021, the Western District of Louisiana elaborated on that burden in its analysis of a claim for maintenance, observing that a reasonable maintenance rate will be awarded to a seaman even if a precise amount of expenses is not proven.[3]  Moreover, certain jurisdictions will then shift the burden of proof to the employer to prove that the actual costs presented are unreasonable for the reason. This was the analysis in the Ninth Circuit’s 2018 decision in Barnes v Sea Haw Rafting, LLC, where the court held that a $34 a day maintenance rate would cover actual and reasonable expenses for the locality in 2011.[4]

Factors to consider

To avoid unnecessary litigation and exposure to potential punitive damages, it is prudent for Members to revisit what may be established as their typical maintenance rate, particularly if it has been several years since their company has done so.

Factors to take into consideration for reasonableness are:  

1) reasonable costs for food and lodging in your crew’s region;

2) current per diem allowances for your crew in port when the vessel’s facilities are unavailable;

3) adjustments for inflation on those amounts; and   

4) prevailing maintenance rates decided by courts in the relevant region.

While Hall’s analysis is still a reliable precedent, its determination of a $30 daily maintenance rate may fall short of a reasonable amount in 2024 for your crew’s region. It is worth taking the time to consider the above factors before issuing maintenance payments to a future injured crewmember. Some Member’s may consider these factors and find that their maintenance rates are reasonable, while others may realize that slight adjustments to maintenance rates will more closely reflect what is a reasonable rate for their region. By taking a short amount of time to re-evaluate existing standard maintenance rates, Members can avoid unnecessary legal costs, potential litigation and exposure to damages.

---

[1] 242 F.3d 582, 587 (5th Cir. 2001),

[2] 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 168446 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018)

[3] Singerman v. PBC Mgmt. (3) 552 F. Supp. 3d 611 (W.D. La. 2021)

[4] Barnes v. Sea Haw. Rafting, LLC 889 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 2018)