than the United States. Accordingly, all of plaintiffs claims against the named defendants other than the United States are dismissed. Plaintiff does not specifically articulate the authority under which he believes this court can exercise jurisdiction to hear his complaint. In-his complaint, plaintiff specifically “moves this court in an Admiralty Cause of Action.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (2012), district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear “any civil ease of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction____” 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). “If a government contract claim concerns admiralty, the United States District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction.” Hunsaker v. United States, 66 Fed.Cl. 129, 132 (2005); see also Thrustmaster of Texas, Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 672, 673 (2004) (<HOLDING>). The law is well-settled that this court does
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 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 holding that the contract disputes act preserves admiralty jurisdiction in the federal district courts for suits arising out of maritime contracts holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction holding that admiralty jurisdiction extends to maritime insurance contracts