An FPSO is a ship that produces oil — so its crew is usually covered as seamen.
Floating production, storage, and offloading vessels are the dominant production system in the world's offshore basins. They are ships — which usually puts their crews under the Jones Act, wherever in the world they work.
Is an FPSO a vessel, and am I a Jones Act seaman on it?
Generally yes. An FPSO is a ship that produces oil, and many have been treated as vessels, which usually makes its crew Jones Act seamen. As a seaman you can sue your employer for negligence under the Jones Act, bring an unseaworthiness claim, and receive maintenance and cure.
Key takeaways
- An FPSO is generally treated as a vessel.
- That usually makes its crew Jones Act seamen.
- Seamen get Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure.
- The Jones Act needs only a light showing of fault; unseaworthiness needs none.
- Status can still be contested, so the specific assignment matters.
A tanker that processes oil.
An FPSO is a converted or purpose-built tanker that receives production from subsea wells, processes and stores the crude on board, and offloads it to shuttle tankers at sea. It is the dominant production system worldwide — the standard in Brazil, West Africa, Guyana, and the North Sea — and is present in the U.S. Gulf (the BW Pioneer at Cascade-Chinook and the Turritella at Stones).
Aboard are the marine crew, the production operators and maintenance hands who run the topsides plant, and the contractors who rotate out for turnarounds and specialist work.
The injuries this work produces.
An FPSO is a process plant on a ship, which combines two sets of hazards: hydrocarbon releases, fires and explosions, and high-pressure failures on the topsides; confined-space dangers in cargo and ballast tanks; and the marine and offloading hazards of mooring, tandem offloading to a shuttle tanker, and station-keeping in weather. Falls, crush, dropped objects, and crane incidents occur throughout.
A ship — so its crew is usually covered as seamen.
Under Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005), any watercraft practically capable of moving on water is a “vessel” — and a FPSO qualifies. That status is the gateway to the strongest remedies in maritime law.
A worker assigned to the FPSO whose duties contribute to its mission, with a connection substantial in nature and duration (the Sanchez / Chandris test), is a Jones Act seaman — with a negligence claim against the employer.
That seaman also has a no-fault unseaworthiness claim if the vessel, its gear, or its crew was not reasonably fit for its purpose.
A service-company or contract worker aboard who is not a crew member can instead sue the vessel for negligence under § 905(b).
Most FPSOs are vessels — ship-shaped, often disconnectable, and built to be relocated. A permanently-moored FPSO can still draw a work-platform argument under the post-Stewart line, and a foreign-flagged FPSO overseas adds choice-of-law and forum questions on top.
An FPSO is where vessel status, seaman status, and — overseas — the forum fight all converge at once.
Sound like your situation? Calling us is confidential, costs nothing, and starts nothing you don’t choose to start.
Text (713) 489-2297We've litigated the classification fight.
Doyle Dennis Avery tries the cases where the classification is the battle. In the Bermuda forum-maneuver case, a drillship mechanic's case was kept in Texas; in our seaman-status workboat case, a workboat injury was built across the Jones Act, § 905(b), and general maritime law; in our foreign-employer jurisdiction case, a contractor's fall offshore was pursued to recovery.
If you were hurt on this kind of unit, the first job is to establish what it is, who you were to it, and who else was responsible. That early work is what protects the value of the claim.
What the other side will argue — and how it’s met.
An FPSO is a vessel that also runs a process plant, so the defense fights crew status and tries to split blame among operators and contractors.
On a vessel the fight is rarely whether it is a vessel — it is whether you were its crew. Seaman status turns on a connection to the vessel or fleet that is substantial in nature and duration (Chandris and Sanchez, roughly 30% of your time) and is provable through assignment and time records. Establishing it opens the full Jones Act and unseaworthy-vessel recovery.
For rigs working overseas or owned through foreign entities, defendants move to dismiss for forum non conveniens or to enforce a foreign forum clause. Those motions can be beaten — the firm has kept foreign-seaman cases in U.S. courts under Rule 4(k)(2) and defeated a post-litigation forum maneuver in three Texas courts.
The Jones Act uses pure comparative negligence, so a worker’s own fault reduces a recovery but never bars it — and the hazard is usually the company’s. In one case the firm tried, a jury found the injured worker zero percent at fault.
A worker does not need to prove unseaworthiness to win. Employer negligence under the Jones Act stands on its own — a jury can find negligence even where it does not find the vessel unseaworthy.
An FPSO case spans marine and process hazards.
Production, storage, and offloading aboard a floating vessel combine marine hazards with refinery-style process risk — the turret, the process deck, offloading hoses, and tandem moorings. The firm reconstructs the failure and uses marine-safety and process experts to set the standard, while assignment records establish seaman status. Because FPSOs often work overseas through layered entities, jurisdiction can be a fight; the firm keeps these cases in U.S. courts and proves the Jones Act and unseaworthy claims against the operator, the owner, and the contractors.
An FPSO is a refinery on a hull — both halves of that have to be made safe, and both leave records.
What to protect while it still exists.
Process and marine records, contracts, and your assignment history all matter — and most sit with foreign or layered entities.
Process and marine maintenance records, permits, the offloading and mooring records, the contracts that show who controlled the work, and your assignment history are the case. Demand preservation early.
Tell a supervisor and make sure a written incident report is created. For a serious injury the vessel must also file a Coast Guard marine-casualty report (Form CG‑2692); a missing report is itself evidence of a safety failure.
See a doctor promptly and describe exactly how the injury happened to every provider. An honest, contemporaneous record is the backbone of the case.
You are not required to give the insurer a recorded statement, and early “I’m okay” remarks get used against you. Assume you may be watched, and get advice before signing.
From our cases
Frequently asked questions about an FPSO injury claims
Is an FPSO a vessel?
Generally yes. An FPSO is a ship that produces oil, and many have been treated as vessels, so courts usually treat it as a vessel for Jones Act purposes.
Am I a Jones Act seaman if I work on an FPSO?
Usually. If you have a substantial connection to an FPSO in both duration and nature, you are typically a Jones Act seaman, able to sue the employer for negligence and claim unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure.
What is the test for whether something is a vessel?
Courts ask whether the structure is practically capable of being used as a means of transportation on water. Something built to move, such as a drillship or supply vessel, usually qualifies; something fixed to the seabed or permanently moored in place usually does not.
Do I have to prove my employer was at fault?
Not entirely. Under the Jones Act you need only show the employer's negligence played some part, however slight, which is a very worker-friendly standard. An unseaworthiness claim requires no negligence at all, only that the vessel or its equipment was not reasonably fit. Maintenance and cure is owed to a seaman regardless of fault.
What can I recover after an injury on an FPSO?
Recovery is measured by category rather than a fixed amount: past and future medical care, lost wages and lost earning capacity, pain and suffering, and maintenance and cure for a seaman. The total depends on the facts, so no honest lawyer can promise a number up front.
What is maintenance and cure?
Maintenance and cure is a no-fault maritime benefit owed to an injured seaman: maintenance covers daily living expenses and cure covers medical care, until you reach maximum medical improvement, regardless of who was at fault.
What should you do after an injury on an FPSO?
Get medical care and make sure the injury is reported in writing. Preserve evidence early, including incident reports, photos, equipment, and witness names, and do not give a recorded statement or sign anything before talking to a lawyer.
What happens when you text us
Tell us what happened — in your own words, as much or as little as you want.
We review it free. You learn whether maritime law protects you and what your options actually are.
You decide. Nothing is filed, and no one contacts your employer, unless you choose to move forward.
Your conversation with us is confidential. There is no fee unless we win. Hablamos español.
Reach out even if…
- You think the accident was partly your fault — under the Jones Act, your own fault reduces a recovery but does not bar it.
- You already gave a statement or signed something — a release signed under pressure can be challenged.
- You still work for the company — talking to a lawyer is confidential, and retaliation for pursuing a claim can itself be actionable.
- You’re not sure your case is “big enough” — that’s exactly what a free review is for.
What you were working on shapes your claim.
Doyle Dennis Avery LLP represents offshore workers injured on drillships, semi-submersibles, jack-ups, FPSOs, platforms, and the supply, service, and construction vessels that serve them. Tell us what you were on and what happened — a case review costs nothing, and there is no obligation.
This page is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Whether a worker is a Jones Act seaman, an LHWCA harbor worker with a § 905(b) claim, or covered another way depends on the specific facts, including the structure involved and the worker’s connection to it. Vessel status and seaman status are fact-intensive questions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Doyle Dennis Avery LLP · Houston, Texas. This is attorney advertising.
