the Court, for all of the reasons stated above, hereby GRANTS LLOG Exploration Offshore, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and hereby respectfully DENIES R & B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Each Party is to bear its own taxable costs and expenses incurred herein to date. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . Mobile offshore drilling units, such as the RBF 254, are vessels, see Offshore Co. v. Robi-son, 266 F.2d 769, 779 (5th Cir.1959), and contracts for offshore drilling involving these vessels are maritime contracts. See Lewis v. Glendel Drilling Co., 898 F.2d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir. 1990). Further, in the Contract, the Parties agreed to the applicability of general maritime law. 2 . See, e.g., In re Incident Aboard the DIB Ocean King, 758 F.2d 1063, 1069 (5th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>). 3 . For example, the Court notes that LLOG
holding that damage to realty was not excluded from coverage if such damage resulted from subsidence caused by something other than soil condition despite homeowners experts description of the damage as settling holding that a partys responsibility for damage from any cause included damage cause by the indemnitee holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations holding that termite damage does not fall within the meaning of property damage in the policy because the alleged misrepresentations did not cause the damage the termites did holding cause of action accrues when some compensable damage occurs