In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lozman v. Riviera Beach held a floating home wasn’t a “vessel” under 1 U.S.C. §3, which shifts lien, arrest, and Jones Act exposure. Anyone dealt with similar borderline platforms — casino or dorm barges — and what steps did you take up front to manage jurisdiction and detention risk?
On a dorm barge project, we recorded a “non‑vessel affidavit,” hard‑fixed shore utilities to a permitted pier, and put lease language saying it’s “not intended for transportation,” which helped a magistrate toss a Rule C arrest. We also removed nav lights and tow points; CG-ENG still poked at it, but the paper trail plus Lozman (568 U.S — 115: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-626_j4ek.pdf) carried the day. @MarinerLaw, got a cleaner clause you prefer for the non‑vessel statement?
And on a casino platform, we got a COTP letter saying it was ‘not intended for navigation,’ recorded a county declaration as real property, and surrendered USCG documentation to blunt arrest risk — belt and suspenders. Caveat: even a storm tow can muddy Lozman, so our tow agreement disclaimed transport purpose and capped crew exposure — anyone else see insurers balk when you drop P&I in favor of property/casualty?
, the tow phase is where this bites — post-Lozman (2013) we got a USACE Section 10 permit labeling the unit a “structure,” filed a UCC fixture against the pier, and treated any move as a dead-ship tow with no crew and a cargo B/L to blunt Jones Act and arrest angles… If a “reasonable observer” wouldn’t see transport purpose, that paper trail plus an AHJ building/fire CO has kept us in state-law land. Anyone tried coupling that with a quick federal declaratory before installation? https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-626_1b82.pdf.
What’s worked for me is front-loading every vendor and yard PO with a bold rep that the unit is “not a vessel under 1 U.S.C. §3” plus an explicit maritime-lien waiver, so a routine pump-out or paint job can’t morph into a “necessaries” arrest and Jones Act headache. Small caveat: I still give the tug a one-time tow plan carve-out so that move is clearly non-commercial — have you seen any pushback on that post-2013?
On a dorm barge in 2019 we solved the detention/jurisdiction mess by getting a state submerged-lands lease that labeled it a non–water-dependent “structure,” then hard-piping power/sewer and pulling nav lights and bitts — so a “reasonable observer” wouldn’t see a transport function… That let the city issue a certificate of occupancy and Fire Marshal sign-off, and our insurer wrote it as property/GL instead of hull/P&I — , paperwork, but it paid off when Sector asked questions. Small caveat: during any repositioning tow we papered a one-off towage contract that preserved the non-vessel stance and barred maritime liens. @docksidecounsel, hav.