Exceptions overruled. See also 54 F. Supp. 157. CHESNUT, District Judge.
Petition of Reliance Marine Transp. Const. Corp., 206 F.2d 240, 243 (2d Cir. 1953); Miller v. Union Barge Line Corp., 299 F. Supp. 718 (W.D.Pa. 1969). This warranty is non-delegable, The Louise, 54 F. Supp. 157, 161 (D.Md. 1943), and shipowner has the burden of proving that the ship was seaworthy at that time. A finding of excessive rust on cargo resulting from the seepage of seawater through the hatch covers of the No. 3 hold would justify the presumption of the unseaworthiness of the S.S. CRYSTAL GEM, which, remaining unrebutted, would entitle plaintiff to a decree against shipowner and charterer for such damage.
Thus, if the voyage is prematurely terminated because of "the unseaworthiness of the [vessel] by reason of [the owner's] lack of due diligence," it is clear that plaintiffs have satisfied their burden under Section 594 as to the impropriety of their discharge. The Louise, 54 F. Supp. 157, 159 (D.Md. 1943). Accord: The Heroe, 21 F. 525 (D.C.Del. 1884); Davis v. Faucon, Fed. Case No. 3, 632b (S.D.N.Y. 1843).
In support of our holding in Alabama Plating that the owned-property exclusion does not preclude coverage for the costs of remediating groundwater contamination, we cited numerous cases addressing groundwater spread. In Claussen v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 7 54 F. Supp. 157 6 (S.D. Ga. 1990), Aetna's insurance policy did not cover claims based solely on damage to its insured's property. According to Aetna, the pollution discharge from the property damaged only the groundwater beneath the insured's own land, and Aetna asserted that under Georgia law a property owner owns all that is below and above his property.