This article will examine the two decisional approaches that the Richardson Court considered in support of the proposition that admiralty jurisdiction should not apply to the facts of the case before it, and will explore the shortcomings of each in an attempt to understand why the majority ultimately felt compelled to reject both. The article will then focus on the five specific arguments thought to mandate that rejection, demonstrating that the conclusion the Court reached is not logically supportable. Finally, a new approach to the issue will be forwarded, one that provides the basis for a more rational approach to the broad issue of admiralty tort jurisdiction.
Phyllis D. Camilla & Michael P. Drzal,
Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson: If This Is Water, It Must Be Admiralty,
59 Wash. L. Rev.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol59/iss1/2