With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in this matter indicates that, while Plaintiff may have worked primarily and predominantly on vessels in drydock or otherwise on land, some of the exposures to benzene did occur on navigable waters. The Court does not, however, find merit to Defendants’ contention that in such “mixed exposures” situations, the presence of some exposures on navigable waters allows the Court to exercise admiralty jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff’s potential claims. Upon examination of the authorities cited by Defendants in support of this proposition, the Court finds that those cases in fact hold that admiralty jurisdiction exists in mixed exposure cases only to the extent of those exposures which have occurred on navigable waters and have expressly met the locality test. See Woessner, 757 F.2d at 638 (<HOLDING>); Harville v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.,

A: holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction
B: 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
C: holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters
D: holding that the land under navigable waters was not granted by the constitution to the united states but was reserved to the states respectively and that new states have the same rights jurisdiction and sovereignty over the soil under navigable water as the original states
B.