of Law We have already determined that the activity causing Kenneth’s injury and death is significantly related to traditional maritime activity — commercial and/or pleasure boating in navigable waters — and that admiralty jurisdiction is appropriate in the present case. It is well established that maritime law applies in “those cases where the subject matter of the controversy bears the type of significant relationship to traditional maritime activities necessary to invoke admiralty jurisdiction.” Laredo Offshore Constructors, Inc. v. Hunt Oil Co., 754 F.2d 1223, 1231 (5th Cir.1985) (relying upon Kossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U.S. 731, 736-38, 81 S.Ct. 886, 890-92, 6 L.Ed.2d 56, (1961)); see Watson on Behalf of Watson v. Massman Const. Co., 850 F.2d 219, 220-21 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). “With admiralty jurisdiction comes the
holding that admiralty jurisdiction extends to maritime insurance contracts holding that wrongful death actions asserted under admiralty jurisdiction lie under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties and are not limited to standards of liability created by state law holding that uniformity is as important in maritime survival actions as it is in maritime wrongful death actions holding that admiralty jurisdiction applies to a tort dispute if either the in jured party or the alleged tortfeasor is a traditional maritime actor or at least if either of those parties is performing a traditional maritime activity holding that the general rule of maritime law that parties bear their own costs coupled with the need for uniformity in federal maritime law precludes the application of state attorneys fee statutes such as texas civ prac  remcode  38001 to maritime contract disputes