In a dispute involving insurance coverage brought against policyholder-yacht dealer and marina operator, district court's order and judgment granting defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to its discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over claims brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act is reversed as the court incorrectly assumed that it had jurisdiction, and thus, its analysis of the abstention issue is vacated. However, the district court's judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims is affirmed as, looking at the interests insured by the policy sub judice, the weight of authority indicated that the insurance policy at issue was not a maritime contract because its primary objective does not relate to maritime commerce.
Argued: March 13, 2009
Decided and Filed: September 24, 2009
Opinion by Judge Clay
For Appellant: Edward R. Goldman, Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, LLP., Cincinnati, Ohio
For Appellee: Robert S. Fulton, Newman, Olson & Kerr, Canfiled, Ohio; Rosemary Taft Milby, Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA., Cleveland, Ohio.