Bridgefield Casualty Insurance v. River Oaks Manag , 680 F. App'x 348 ( 2017 )

Case: 16-30872 Document: 00513911162 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-30872 FILED
March 14, 2017
BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
RIVER OAKS MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:12-CV-2336
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant River Oaks Management, Inc. (River Oaks)
appeals from a final judgment entered by the district court in favor of Plaintiff-
Appellee Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Co. (Bridgefield) in this declaratory
judgment action. Bridgefield provided River Oaks with workers’ compensation
insurance from 2005 to 2013. Bridgefield contends that it is not required to
pay workers’ compensation for injuries incurred by one of River Oaks’s
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 16-30872 Document: 00513911162 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2017
No. 16-30872
Mississippi employees due to a provision of the applicable policy that required
River Oaks to give notice to Bridgefield that River Oaks had work outside of
Louisiana before out-of-state coverage could be provided. 1 After a bench trial,
the district court concluded that Bridgefield had not waived its right to enforce
the provision because it had not accepted premiums with knowledge of River
Oaks’s Mississippi operations. The only issue on appeal is whether the district
court erred in finding that Bridgefield did not waive its right to enforce this
provision based on a March 2012 premium audit conducted by its agent.
A careful review of the record in this case, a full consideration of the
parties’ briefs and oral arguments on appeal, and a thorough analysis of the
district court’s ruling lead us to conclude that the district court’s judgment
contains no legal error and no clearly erroneous finding of fact. Louisiana law
provides that an insurer waives the right to enforce a power of avoidance or
privilege of forfeiture if it accepts insurance premiums after receiving notice of
facts that would cause a reasonable person to inquire further into whether such
power or privilege existed. See Home Ins. Co. v. Matthews, 998 F.2d 305, 309-
10 (5th Cir. 1993); Steptore v. Masco Constr. Co., Inc., 643 So.2d 1213, 1216
(La. 1994). The district court applied this standard and concluded that
Bridgefield did not accept premiums with such notice because the auditor did
not review the provided documents for the purpose of ascertaining whether
River Oaks was working out of state, and only reviewed the documents
selectively. The district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. Therefore,
we affirm the district court judgment for essentially the reasons stated by that
court.
AFFIRMED.
A more detailed discussion of the factual history of this case is contained in our
1
previous opinion. See Bridgefield Cas. Ins. Co. v. River Oaks Mgmt., Inc., 590 F. App’x 308
(5th Cir. 2014).
2