maritime law retained its full force. Id. Under Yamaha and Mo-ragne, federal maritime law sets a floor for recovery for wrongful death, and not a ceiling. Id. In the wake of Yamaha and Moragne, the federal courts, in accordance with those opinions, have applied state laws to admiralty cases where those state laws “fill gaps” or add additional avenues for recovery, but have not applied state laws that seek to remove proper avenues for recovery under maritime law. See, e.g., TAG/ ICIB Services, 215 F.3d at 177; Vanderpool v. Edmondson, No.1:01-cv-147, 2004 WL 5210154 at *4 (E.D.Tenn.2004) (“To the extent that Tennessee state law is in conflict with general maritime law, the conflicting state law must be disregarded.”); American Dredging Co. v. Lambert, 81 F.3d 127, 130-31 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Subsequently, in Norfolk Shipbuilding &
holding that a claim based on a cruise lines negligent mode of operation under florida law is not cognizable under federal admiralty law holding that nonpecuniary damages created under florida law were available in an admiralty action holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction