Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Ltd. of London v. Portland Electric Power Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The only point argued before this court is the relation the employee bears to the Workmen’s Compensation Law of Oregon (Or. L. § 6605 et seq.). It is clear that the policy covers others than those in the employ of the insured; and where the employer is engaged in more than one business, he may come under the aet as to one business and stay out as to the other, and by filing the necessary notices he is excluded from the act. State ex rel. Marshall v. Roesch, 108 Or. 371, 216 P. 749. The employer being “out of the aet,” there is nothing in the record or the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- American Surety Company v. PaulySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Evanhoff v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1915
- Moore v. Ætna Life InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1915
- State ex rel. Marshall v. RoeschOregon Supreme Court · 1923
3Cited by3 opinions
- Close-Smith v. ConleyDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1964
- Teeples v. TolsonDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1962
- Cushman v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1942