COLUMBIA HELICOPTERS, INC., an Oregon corporation v. CARSON HELICOPTERS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, FKA Carson Services, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COLUMBIA HELICOPTERS, INC., an
Oregon corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARSON HELICOPTERS, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation, FKA Carson
Services, Inc.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-36071
D.C. No. 6:08-cv-06415-AA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2010
Portland, Oregon
Before: TASHIMA, PAEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Carson Helicopters, Inc. appeals the district court’s partial summary
judgment in favor of Columbia Helicopters, Inc. We agree with the district court
FILED
OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
that Carson is obligated under the indemnities clause to defend Columbia against
lawsuits arising out of the 2008 helicopter crash. Accordingly, we affirm.
Oregon law relating to contract interpretation provides that “where there are
several provisions or particulars, such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as
will give effect to all,” and that a court may not “omit what has been inserted.” Or.
Rev. Stat. § 42.230; see Industra/Matrix Joint Venture v. Pope & Talbot, Inc., 341
Ore. 321, 335 (2006). The word “defend” has a plain meaning distinct from
“indemnify” and clearly indicates that Carson is obligated to provide Columbia
with a defense of the claims arising out of the crash, because those claims meet the
monetary threshold amounts set forth in the clause. To conclude otherwise would
read the word “defend” out of the clause.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --