Pilling v. Travelers Ins. Co.

“[ . . . ] the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit creates a partnership, whether or not the person intended to create a partnership.” ORS 67.055.

Claimant sought judicial review of an order by the Workers’ Compensation Board that reversed an order by an administrative law judge, which held that claimant was not a “subject worker” entitled to workers’ compensation coverage because he was a partner in the business at the time of the injury, and had not previously made an election of coverage. On appeal, claimant argued that he did not need to apply for or elect coverage for himself because he was not a partner of the business, and thus he was covered by the Travelers policy already in place as a subject worker and employee of the business. “[ . . . ] the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit creates a partnership, whether or not the person intended to create a partnership.” ORS 67.055. The Court of Appeals rejected claimant’s argument and found that the record contained substantial evidence in support of the board’s determination that claimant was a co-owner and partner of the business at the time of the injury. Affirmed.