Insurance Company v. Dunham
11 Wall. 1 (1870)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The test for determining whether a contract falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction is the nature and subject matter of the contract, not the locality where it was made or is to be performed. A contract of marine insurance is a maritime contract and is therefore within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Facts:
- A person identified in court records as Dunham obtained a policy of marine insurance from the New England Mutual Marine Insurance Company.
- The policy insured Dunham's schooner, the Albion, against losses during a specific voyage.
- The policy covered the schooner for a voyage from Bangor, Maine, to Providence, Rhode Island.
- During the insured voyage, the schooner Albion was wrecked and suffered a total loss.
- Dunham submitted a claim to the New England Mutual Marine Insurance Company to recover for the loss.
- The insurance company refused to pay the claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Dunham filed a libel in personam against the New England Mutual Marine Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, sitting in admiralty.
- The case was appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- While hearing the appeal, the two judges of the Circuit Court (the associate justice and the circuit judge) were divided in their opinion on the question of whether the district court had proper admiralty jurisdiction over a marine insurance contract.
- Due to their disagreement, the judges of the Circuit Court certified the question of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States for a final decision.
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 a contract for marine insurance constitute a 'maritime contract' sufficient to bring a claim for loss under federal admiralty jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Bradley
Yes, a contract for marine insurance is a maritime contract, and a claim for loss under such a policy falls within the federal courts' admiralty jurisdiction. The court's reasoning is that the scope of American admiralty jurisdiction is not limited by the restrictive English common law, which was based on locality. Instead, the true criterion for contract jurisdiction is the 'nature and subject-matter' of the contract. A contract of marine insurance is fundamentally maritime in nature because its subject matter is maritime commerce, maritime transportation, and maritime risks. The court compared marine insurance to contracts of affreightment (shipping goods), which are also made on land but are considered maritime because they pertain to maritime service. The court reasoned that a contract guaranteeing against the perils of the sea is just as maritime as a contract to perform a service on the sea. Furthermore, the contract of marine insurance historically originated from and is governed by the general law maritime, not the common law, and is therefore properly adjudicated in a court of admiralty.
Analysis:
This landmark decision decisively rejected the restrictive English 'locality test' for admiralty contract jurisdiction in favor of the broader 'nature and subject-matter test.' By classifying marine insurance as a maritime contract, the Supreme Court significantly expanded the scope of federal admiralty jurisdiction. This ruling promoted uniformity in maritime commercial law, ensuring that contracts essential to maritime commerce would be adjudicated under a consistent body of federal law rather than varying state laws. The decision solidified the principle that federal admiralty power extends to all contracts that have a direct and substantial link to maritime commerce or navigation, regardless of where they are executed.
Unlock the full brief for Insurance Company v. Dunham