Underwriters Corp., 519 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir.1975); Watz v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 431 F.2d 100, 109-10 (5th Cir.1970)). This case presents the unique issue of whether the locality test has been met where Plaintiff’s injury is alleged to be the result of numerous exposures to benzene, only some of which occurred on navigable waters. Plaintiffs argue that admiralty jurisdiction is inappropriate in this case because the locality test cannot be met with regard to all potential exposures to benzene that Coleman may have suffered. Conversely, Defendants argue that, having established that some of the exposures to benzene occurred on navigable water, admiralty jurisdiction may be asserted over all of Plaintiffs’ claims. This Court notes that the evidence produc F.2d 775, 783 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this Court finds that the situs
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 the locality requirement for admiralty jurisdiction was met only to the extent that the claims arose from exposures that occurred on navigable waters holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that a complaint that asserts both admiralty jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction is not an adequate 9h designation to trigger admiralty procedures holding that claims arising from landbased exposures to an allegedly defective product did not meet situs test for admiralty jurisdiction