SAIF v. Ward, 506 P.3d 386

Background

Claimant leased a tractor from Bob Murray Trucking (BMT) under an "Operator Lease/Independent Contractor Agreement" that disclaimed any proprietary or transferable interest and required exclusive use of the truck to haul loads for BMT.
Lease payments, insurance and (optionally) maintenance fees were deducted from claimant’s pay; BMT placed its logo on the truck and imposed detailed rules (routes, inspections, conduct, passenger restrictions).
While hauling a BMT load the leased truck crashed; claimant was severely injured and filed for workers’ compensation.
SAIF (insurer) denied coverage under ORS 656.027(15), asserting claimant was a nonsubject worker who "had a leasehold interest and who furnishes, maintains and operates the equipment."
An ALJ upheld SAIF; the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the lease did not give a transferable interest so claimant could not "furnish" the truck; the Court of Appeals affirmed the Board.
The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed: the exemption requires a leasehold or ownership interest that permits the lessee to possess, use and furnish the equipment beyond exclusive use for the lessor; claimant’s agreement did not meet that standard, so he was a subject worker entitled to coverage.

Issues

Issue	SAIF's Argument	Ward's Argument	Held
1. Whether ORS 656.027(15) contains two distinct requirements (ownership/leasehold interest and furnishing)	Textually only requires a leasehold (right to possession/use) plus furnishing; ordinary meanings suffice	The conjunctive text should be read to require more than mere possession/use to give each word effect	Court: Two distinct requirements; both must be given effect—leasehold cannot be mere paper right that only authorizes furnishing to the lessor.
2. Meaning of "leasehold interest" in the statute	Means the UCC/basic right to possession and use of goods (no transferable/proprietary right needed)	Requires more than mere possession/use—an interest that permits control/use beyond furnishing exclusively for the lessor	Court: Leasehold requires possession and use per UCC, but in context must afford additional practical authority (not just exclusive use by lessor) to satisfy the exemption.
3. Meaning of "furnish" and interaction with "leasehold interest"	"Furnish" = provide or supply the equipment to the carrier; no separate transferable interest required	"Furnish" implies the lessee can supply/control the equipment for others or otherwise exercise independent control	Court: "Furnish" means supply, but reading it with "leasehold interest" indicates the lessee must be able to furnish the equipment beyond doing so solely at the lessor's exclusive direction.
4. Application to facts — did claimant qualify as a nonsubject worker?	Yes: claimant had a lease and furnished, maintained and operated the truck for BMT	No: the lease was restrictive, conferred no transferable/proprietary interest and was effectively a sham; claimant was subject worker	Court: No exemption—lease restrictions prevented sufficient authority to "furnish"; claimant is a subject worker entitled to workers’ compensation.

Key Cases Cited

PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Industries, 317 Or 606 (statutory interpretation framework)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (text, context, legislative intent analysis)
S-W Floor Cover Shop v. Natl. Council on Comp. Ins., 318 Or 614 (definition of "worker")
State v. McNally, 361 Or 314 (use of technical/term-of-art meanings)
State v. Walker, 356 Or 4 (relation between legislative history and statutory text)
Crystal Communications, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 353 Or 300 (avoid statutory redundancy; give effect to all provisions)
SAIF Corp. v. Ward, 307 Or App 337 (Court of Appeals decision affirming the Board)