found, the contracts at issue here ‘were by their terms entered into in connection with [a] maritime commercial venture and are therefore maritime in nature.’ ”). The decision turns on whether the contract has “reference to maritime service or maritime transactions.” Norfolk S. Ry., 543 U.S. at 24, 125 S.Ct. 385. In this case, Binani argues that the indemnity contract is a mere a promise to pay money on land, not a maritime contract. Binani cites cases purporting to hold that a covenant to pay damages merely related to a maritime transaction is different from a maritime contract itself. It is true that “merely agreeing as surety ‘to pay damages for another’s breach of a maritime charter is not’ a maritime contract.” Fednav, Ltd. v. Isoramar, S.A., 925 F.2d 599, 601 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>) (citing Kossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U.S.
holding that promise to contribute for settlement and legal fees was not maritime contract holding that contract promise to litigate any dispute arising from the contract in the english courts was prima facie valid quoting underlying contract holding defendant waived request for fees pursuant to contract provision by only generally referring to fees in the answer and not citing the contract 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   holding that money received in settlement refers to the injured persons net recovery after paying attorney fees and costs a client does not receive attorneys fees under the statute because a lawyer has a claim to such fees as soon as a settlement agreement is reached