and when doing so would not undermine uniformity ... In this case, there is a body of federal maritime jurisprudence relating to wrongful discharge, and turning to West Virginia for the rule of decision would clearly undermine uniformity in federal admiralty law. Therefore, ... it was error to look to West Virginia common law for a rule of decision ...” Id. at 702-703. Not only must this Court look to admiralty law under Meaige, defendant avers, but admiralty jurisdiction is the only basis for jurisdiction expressly invoked by plaintiff in his Complaint. Defendant concludes that, where a complaint contains a statement identifying a claim as an admiralty or maritime claim, there is no right to a jury trial. See T.N.T. Marine Services v. Weaver Shipyards, 702 F.2d 585, 588 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Under Weaver Shipyards, defendant submits,
holding that a defendants counterclaim that is based on the breach of the same maritime insurance contract as the main claim  cannot be granted a jury trial because the resolution of the defendants claim would dispose of all or part of the plaintiffs action the net result would be to resolve the case in a jury trial despite the plaintiffs 9h election holding that plaintiffs amended complaint was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations where the amendment merely expanded on plaintiffs negligence theories and stating that in a tort action an amendment may vary the statement of the original complaint as to the manner in which the plaintiff was injured or as to the manner of the defendants breach of duty holding that plaintiff was not entitled to jury trial because he asserted admiralty or maritime claims in his complaint by stating the complaint of tnt marine services inc for breach of contract civil and maritime and for maritime tort avers on information and belief as follows   recognizing a maritime lien for breach of a partially executed charter party holding that promise to contribute for settlement and legal fees was not maritime contract