Catlin (Syndicate 2003) at Lloyd's v. San Juan Towing & Marine Services, Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 256

Catlin moved for reconsideration of the court's earlier dismissal and sought to reopen Case No. 11-2093.
The court had previously held that the Perseverence is not a vessel under Lozman, denying admiralty jurisdiction.
Catlin argued admiralty jurisdiction exists because the dispute concerns a marine insurance policy, and alternatively, diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Defendant San Juan Towing & Marine Services, Inc. opposed, conceding Catlin properly pled diversity.
The court ultimately found both diversity and admiralty jurisdiction exist over the policy dispute, and vacated the dismissal, reopening Case No. 11-2093.
The court analyzed whether the policy is marine insurance and whether the Perseverence constitutes a maritime interest sufficient to confer admiralty jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether diversity jurisdiction exists	Catlin properly pled diversity and amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.	SJT does not argue lack of diversity; argues vessel status not dispositive for jurisdiction.	Diversity jurisdiction exists; subject matter jurisdiction is proper.
Whether admiralty jurisdiction exists over the insurance policy	Policy is marine insurance, and thus the contract is maritime in nature.	Policy is not maritime because Perseverence is not a vessel, so the contract is not a maritime contract.	The Policy is a maritime contract, and admiralty jurisdiction exists.
Whether the Perseverence constitutes a maritime interest	Perseverence is a maritime interest as a drydock used for vessel maintenance and repair.	Non-vessel status precludes maritime interest.	Perseverence is a maritime interest; it engages in traditional maritime activity and supports admiralty jurisdiction.

Kirby v. United States, 543 U.S. 14 (U.S. 2004) (contract analysis must look to nature and character, not vessel status)
Dunham, 78 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1870) (maritime contract requires relation to navigation or maritime commerce)
Sea Vessel, Inc. v. Reyes, 23 F.3d 345 (11th Cir. 1994) (routine vessel repair related to maritime activity supports jurisdiction)
Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., 500 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1991) (service is maritime regardless of afloat or dry dock status)
N.H. Ins. Co. v. Home Savings & Loan Co., 581 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2009) (identify maritime nature by looking at insured interests and primary objective)
Folksamerica Reinsurance Co. v. Clean Water of N.Y., Inc., 413 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2005) (determine maritime status by contract’s primary objective and insured interests)
Royal Ins. Co. v. Pier 39 Ltd. P’ship, 738 F.2d 1035 (9th Cir. 1984) (interests insured must be maritime for admiralty jurisdiction)
Acadia Ins. Co. v. McNeil, 116 F.3d 599 (1st Cir. 1997) (maritime contract analysis considers insured interests and risks)
Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1990) (storage/maintenance related to maritime activity supports jurisdiction)