Crew Member Pursues Injury Claim Against Happy Ending Yacht LLC While Insurers Seek to Void Yacht Coverage
A maritime insurance dispute and an underlying injury lawsuit have emerged over a February 25, 2024 incident aboard the 97-foot Hargrave motor yacht Happy, owned by Happy Ending Yacht LLC. Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company, Texas Insurance Company, and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London have filed a declaratory judgment action in the Southern District of Florida under Case No. 0:25-cv-61494, arguing that the yacht’s liability coverage is void due to misrepresentations and late claim notice. Meanwhile, crew member Vannessa R. Lucier is pursuing an injury lawsuit against Happy Ending Yacht LLC and William H. Brown, Jr., alleging negligence under maritime law.
Crew Member Sues for Jones Act Negligence After Shoulder Injury in the Bahamas
According to Lucier’s complaint, she was working as a paid crew member aboard the Happy when she injured her shoulder assisting the vessel owner’s guest at Highborne Cay in the Bahamas. Lucier alleges that the yacht was understaffed and that she was forced to perform duties beyond her role, leading to her injury. Her state court lawsuit, Vannessa R. Lucier v. Happy Ending Charter, LLC and William H. Brown, Jr. (CACE-24-006218), claims Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and seeks maintenance and cure benefits.
Lucier’s complaint describes ongoing pain, medical expenses, and a permanent shoulder impairment that has affected her ability to work at sea. She alleges that the yacht operator failed to provide adequate medical care and safe working conditions, both of which contributed to her injury.
Insurers Argue Policy Void Due to Misrepresentation of Crew and Late Notice
In contrast, the insurers’ federal declaratory judgment filing contends that there is no coverage for Lucier’s claims because Happy Ending allegedly misrepresented the number of paid crew during the insurance application process. The policy issued (CSRYP/230610) provided liability coverage for only two named crew members, but Lucier was not listed.
The insurers argue that under the marine insurance doctrine of uberrimae fidei, Happy Ending had an affirmative duty to disclose all material facts, including the correct number of paid crew. The complaint states that Happy Ending represented employing only “2 – 1 FT, 1 PT” crew, naming Captain Alexander Kohut and Manager Andrew Pulman, while Lucier was never disclosed.
The insurers further allege that Happy Ending breached the policy’s 30-day notice requirement, waiting until May 2025, over a year after the incident, to report Lucier’s injury. Under New York law, which governs the policy in the absence of entrenched federal admiralty precedent, late notice alone can void coverage regardless of prejudice to the insurer.
Comparison of the Two Filings: Liability vs. Coverage Defense
Lucier’s injury lawsuit centers on the liability of the yacht owner, Happy Ending Yacht LLC, for allegedly unsafe working conditions and failure to provide proper medical care. Her complaint under the Jones Act claims that she was performing her duties as a paid crew member when she suffered a shoulder injury while assisting a guest. Lucier asserts that the vessel was unseaworthy due to understaffing and unsafe operations, and she seeks damages for lost wages, medical costs, and pain and suffering, along with maintenance and cure benefits owed to seafarers injured in service of a vessel.
In contrast, the insurers’ declaratory judgment action focuses entirely on coverage defenses rather than the facts of the injury itself. Accelerant, Texas Insurance, and Lloyd’s argue that the policy is void due to material misrepresentation because Happy Ending allegedly failed to list Lucier as a paid crew member when applying for insurance. They also contend that late notice, reporting the injury more than a year after it occurred, bars coverage under New York law. If successful, this would leave Happy Ending solely responsible for any damages awarded in Lucier’s lawsuit, with no insurer duty to defend or indemnify.
Implications for Yacht Owners and Crew Members
The ongoing legal battle highlights the risks faced by yacht owners when marine insurance applications fail to disclose all paid crew members or comply with strict notice requirements. It also demonstrates how crew members can face significant hurdles in securing compensation if insurers succeed in rescinding coverage due to alleged misrepresentation or late reporting of claims.
If the federal court sides with the insurers, Happy Ending would not only lose its liability coverage but could also be personally responsible for Lucier’s claims. Conversely, if Lucier prevails in her injury lawsuit and the coverage dispute is resolved in her favor, this case could reinforce the obligations of marine insurers to clarify crew coverage terms and the importance of timely claim reporting by vessel owners.
Contact a Crew Injury Lawyer for Maritime Claims
Crew members injured while working at sea have important rights under the Jones Act and general maritime law, including claims for negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. If you have suffered an injury while working aboard a yacht or cruise ship, our experienced crew injury attorneys can help you pursue compensation for medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering. We fight to hold vessel owners and operators accountable when unsafe conditions lead to serious injuries.
Contact us now to speak with a dedicated maritime crew injury lawyer.
