Fraser River Inc owned a boat called The Squamish. Fraser River did not actually use the boat. Instead, it chartered (rented) the boat to other people. Until recently, it had chartered The Squamish to Can-Dive Corp. The boat unfortunately was badly damaged as a result of Can-Dive's negligence. In normal circumstances, Fraser River would have sued Can-Dive in either tort or contract for compensation. In fact, Fraser River did not need to do so. It had purchased an insurance policy from London Insurance Inc. That policy required the insurance company to pay for the repairs. As we will see in Chapter 16, an insurance company that provides compensation to a policyholder is normally "subrogated" to the rights of that policyholder. In the present situation, that would mean that London Insurance could "step into the shoes" of Fraser River and sue Can-Dive for the damage that Can-Dive created. Can Dive, however, points to a provision that was contained in the insurance contract that Fraser River bought from London Insurance. That provision states, "It is agreed that the insurer waives any right of subrogation against any charterer." Can-Dive therefore argues that it cannot be sued by London Insurance. Is that correct?