516 U.S. at 199, 116 S.Ct. 619 (quoting East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 866, 106 S.Ct. 2295, 90 L.Ed.2d 865 (1986)); National Enters., Inc. v. Smith, 114 F.3d 561, 565 (6th Cir.1997) (“When a district court exercises its admiralty jurisdiction, that court must apply admiralty law, rather than state law, to the case before it”) This court’s exercise of admiralty jurisdiction “does not result in automatic displacement of state law.” Id. (quoting Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 545, 115 S.Ct. 1043, 130 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1995)). However, admiralty law does require displacement of state law in a great many contexts. See, e.g., Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 398-99, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970) (<HOLDING>); Pearce v. United States, 261 F.3d 643, 647
holding that admiralty jurisdiction extends to maritime insurance contracts holding that general maritime law preempts state law holding that uniformity is as important in maritime survival actions as it is in maritime wrongful death actions 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 federal maritime law and not state law applies to all actions for wrongful death in navigable state waters