Paper by Kenneth H. Volk
The attempt to project some “principle” is best left alone. There is about as much “principle” as there is in a list of irregular verbs. Fortunately, the contracts involved tend to fall into a not-too-great number of stereotypes, the proper placing of which can be learned, like irregular verbs, and errors in grammar thus avoided.
The contract of marine insurance represents one of the characteristic stereotypes of maritime contracts. This paper will explore the analytical components and anomalies of admiralty jurisdiction as it relates to marine insurance and will conjugate, if you will, the “irregular verb” that constitutes admiralty jurisdiction of marine insurance contracts.
The paper begins with a discussion of the constitutional and statutory foundations of exclusive and concurrent admiralty jurisdiction. Two principal cases, Justice Story's 1815 opinion in De Lovio v. Boit and Justice Bradley's 1870 Supreme Court opinion in Insurance Co. v. Dunham elucidate several significant issues: the emancipation of American admiralty jurisdiction from the strait jacket of English common law, the definition of the proper measure of admiralty jurisdiction of contracts in general, and in particular, the determination that admiralty jurisdiction embraces marine insurance contracts. Particular insurance controversies reflect the judiciary's efforts to define insurance policies that constitute maritime contracts and that, as such, are cognizable in admiralty.
Although the federal courts exercise their admiralty jurisdiction to adjudicate marine insurance disputes, in many instances Supreme Court directives require federal courts to apply state law. Thus, the states have power to promulgate the governing law in the field of marine insurance. The discussion which follows, however, is not concerned with the consequences or ramifications of this choice of law issue but rather with the practicalities of exercising admiralty jurisdiction in actions involving marine insurance policies. The choice of federal or state law does not change the scope of the federal court's admiralty jurisdiction. As one court has noted, “ however else one interprets Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., . . . that decision dealt with choice of law and not with admiralty jurisdiction.”
About the Author
Kenneth H. Volk. Member, New York State Bar, partner in the firm of Burlingham Underwood & Lord, President of the Maritime Law Association of the United States.
Citation
66 Tul. L. Rev. 257 (1991)