owner for indemnity, the Supreme Court held that because the consideration for the vessel owner’s promise was the seaman’s “good faith forbearance to press ... his maritime right to as admiralty jurisdiction to support attachment because underlying claim was on contract “whose purpose is directly traceable to the presence of cargo onboard a seagoing vessel”). B It should be noted that even if the indemnity contract were viewed as a “mixed contract” containing maritime and non-maritime components, as Binani urges, the Court still would have admiralty jurisdiction because the principal objective of the contract was maritime commerce, namely the discharge of the coal without the bills of lading. See Folksamerica Reinsurance Co. v. Clean Water of N.Y., Inc., 413 F.3d 307, 315 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Norfolk S. Ry., 543 U.S. at 24, 125
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 admiralty jurisdiction extends to maritime insurance contracts holding that the contract disputes act preserves admiralty jurisdiction in the federal district courts for suits arising out of maritime contracts holding that although there were nonmaritime elements court had admiralty jurisdiction because contract was primarily or principally concerned with maritime objectives 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