Second Circuit Revives Sieracki Seaman Unseaworthiness and Maritime Negligence Claims for Volunteer Firefighter
May 27, 2026
Types : Alerts
The United States Court of Appeals recently reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a volunteer firefighter’s employer, finding that the firefighter, who was injured while aboard a firefighting vessel, should have been entitled to assert an unseaworthiness cause of action.
In reaching this conclusion, the Second Circuit rejected arguments that: (1) the unseaworthiness claim only applies to a non-seaman if his relationship to the vessel is as an independent contractor; (2) that unseaworthiness claims do not extend to land-based workers; and (3) that unseaworthiness claims extend only to those whose job on a vessel is primarily as an aid to navigation.
Instead, the Court found that what matters is whether the worker (notwithstanding his lack of qualification as a Jones Act seaman) was “doing a seaman’s work and incurring a seaman’s hazards” quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872 (1946).
The Second Circuit further rejected an argument that a New York state law, which was designed to provide an exclusive remedy to volunteer firefighters, could bar his general maritime negligence claim, finding that depriving a worker of maritime remedies in this context would “work material prejudice” to the characteristic features of general maritime law.
This decision serves as a reminder that state workers’ compensation exclusivity may not provide a bulletproof shield against maritime claims when the work performed is inherently maritime in nature.
Furthermore, it confirms that a specific class of workers, such as state and local government employees, who are ineligible for both the Jones Act and the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, may still pursue strict liability unseaworthiness claims under the Sieracki doctrine.
The decision, which is well-written, and contains a thorough analysis of the history of unseaworthiness claims, is reported as In re Verplanck Fire District, — F.4th —-, 2026 WL 1180206 (2d Cir. Apr. 30, 2026). If you have any questions about this article or unseaworthiness or maritime negligence claims in general, please contact Jon Werner of Montgomery McCracken’s Maritime and Transportation Industry Group.