Stanley Forman Reed

“ If not, should we fashion one?' By question (1) the Court means, as its opinion shows, a federal admiralty rule that a warranty of an insured is to be strictly enforced with the result that a breach of the warranty relieves the insurer of liability for loss although the breach was not shown to have contributed to the loss.
The Court concludes that the literal performance rule has not been established by statute or by judicial decision. It acknowledges that a maritime insurance policy is a maritime contract brought under federal jurisdiction by the Admiralty Clause of the Constitution. ”

“ One rule of laws stands unquestioned. That is that all courts, state and federal, which have jurisdiction to enforce maritime or admiralty substantive rights must do so according to federal admiralty law. [6] See particularly the excellent discussion of Judge Magruder in Doucette v. Vincent, 1 Cir., 194 F.2d 834, 841 et seq. The issue of an insurer's liability upon an insured's broken warranty is clearly a matter of substantive law. ”

“ While states may sometimes supplement federal maritime policies, a state may not deprive a person of any substantial admiralty rights as defined in controlling acts of Congress or by interpretative decisions of this Court. ”

“ As is shown by The Hamilton, 207 U.S. 398, 28 S.Ct. 133, 52 L.Ed. 264, such an exercise of state power permits the States to declare the applicable laws of marine insurance even on the high seas. The event of loss must always be local, but the coverage of the policy is general. [20] When state power intrudes upon the uniformity imposed by federal law, its exercise is invalid when applied to maritime litigation whether the application occurs in litigation arising from an incident that happens on a small lake or a mighty river. ”

“ Thus, by saving a suitor's common-law remedy, Congress has created by § 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, now 28 U.S.C. (Supp. V, 1952) § 1333, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1333, only a limited exclusive jurisdiction. The state courts may furnish not only a common-law remedy existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, for substantive admiralty rights, but also new judicial remedies created by statute; that is, whatever remedy is not strictly in rem. ”

“ Calmar Steamship Corp. v. Scott, 345 U.S. 427, 442-443, 73 S.Ct. 739, 747, 97 L.Ed. 1125. Before our Revolution, the rule of strict compliance with maritime insurance warranties had been established as the law of England. ”