Travelers Indemnity Company v. United States

This appeal comes before us for consideration of the narrow issue of what meaning is to be ascribed to the words “associated” and “affiliated” as used in the waiver of subrogation clause of the insurance policy involved herein. The court below, D.C., 393 F.Supp. 79 , relying on Or.Rev.Stat. 744.165, held that a federal government agency was “associated” with the insured within the meaning of this policy provision:

The subrogation case against the agency, therefore, was dismissed.

The trial court’s holding that the government agency and the insured were “associated” was induced by an erroneous view of the law. Therefore, to the extent it represents a finding of fact it is clearly erroneous, see Ritter v. Morton, 513 F.2d 942, 949 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 947 , 96 S.Ct. 362 , 46 L.Ed.2d 281 (1975), and to the extent it is a conclusion of law it is in error. We reverse and remand for trial on the issue of liability, holding that the court below erred in applying Or.Rev.Stat. 744.-165 and that the two entities are neither “associated” nor “affiliated.”

I.

Facts

Plaintiff, Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers), asserts it is a subrogee of Pacific Power & Light Company…