De Lovio v. Boit
7 F. Cas. 418, 2 Gall. 398 (1815)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction granted to the federal courts by the U.S. Constitution is not limited by the restrictive English common law rules but extends to all maritime contracts, including policies of marine insurance, based on the subject matter of the contract.
Facts:
- The parties entered into a contract for a policy of marine insurance.
- The purpose of the insurance policy was to provide indemnification against losses related to a maritime venture.
- A dispute arose between the insurer and the insured regarding a claim made under this policy.
- The underlying contract of insurance was the subject of the legal action.
- The contract was alleged to be a maritime contract, thus invoking admiralty jurisdiction.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff brought a libel (a lawsuit in admiralty) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts upon a policy of insurance.
- The plaintiff alleged that the insurance policy was a maritime contract, thus placing it under the court's admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
- The defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that a policy of insurance is not a maritime contract and therefore the district court, sitting in admiralty, lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States federal courts extend to contracts of marine insurance?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Story
Yes, the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States federal courts extends to contracts of marine insurance. The constitutional grant of "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" should be interpreted broadly, encompassing the scope of jurisdiction exercised by continental European maritime courts, not the narrow and historically contested jurisdiction permitted by English common law courts. Justice Story undertook an exhaustive historical review, concluding that English admiralty courts originally had broad jurisdiction over all maritime contracts and torts, which was later curtailed by the jealousy of common law courts through restrictive statutes and interpretations. He argued that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended to adopt the more expansive, traditional understanding of maritime jurisdiction based on the subject matter of the dispute. Therefore, if a contract's subject matter is maritime (i.e., it relates to the navigation, business, or commerce of the sea), it falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction, regardless of where the contract was made or executed. A policy of marine insurance is quintessentially a maritime contract, as its entire purpose relates to the risks of sea commerce, and thus is properly within the jurisdiction of a federal admiralty court.
Analysis:
De Lovio v. Boit is a foundational case in American admiralty law that established a broad, subject-matter basis for jurisdiction over maritime contracts. By rejecting the narrow English locality rule, Justice Story's opinion dramatically expanded the authority of federal courts and provided a uniform legal framework essential for the nation's growing maritime commerce. This decision ensured that disputes involving a wide array of maritime agreements, from insurance to repairs and supplies, could be heard in federal admiralty courts, which applied a more consistent and commercially-oriented body of law. The precedent set here continues to define the scope of federal admiralty jurisdiction over contracts today.
