Court explained that “[t]he requirements of the Seventh Amendment were brought into play in this case, even though a stevedor-ing contract is a maritime contract.” Id. at 359, 82 S.Ct. 780. The Court held that “[t]his suit being in the federal courts by reason of diversity of citizenship carried with it, of course, the right to trial by jury,” id. at 360, 82 S.Ct. 780, and that the manner in which the circuit court rejected the jury verdict violated the Seventh Amendment’s prohibition against the reexamination of facts found by a jury. See id. at 364, 82 S.Ct. 780. In our view, Ellerman makes it clear that the Seventh Amendment applies to admiralty claims that are tried “at law” by way of the saving-to-suitors clause. See id. at 359-60, 82 S.Ct. 780; see also Vodusek, 71 F.3d at 152-53 (<HOLDING>); Koch Fuels, Inc. v. Cargo of 13,000 Barrels
holding that a claim based on a cruise lines negligent mode of operation under florida law is not cognizable under federal admiralty law holding claim is cognizable holding claim is not cognizable holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction recognizing that the seventh amendment applies to admiralty claim that is cognizable at law