exclusion under a worker's compensation policy for work outside of the wheezy ena even though bridgefield was provided with documentation of revokes mississippi operations three months before the accident in question and accepted premiums based on it mississippi pedro before the accident and after the accident and throughout two thousand and twelve this is actually the second time this case is before with this court judge dennis was on the first of pinion premium payments by breach feel after receiving knowledge of facts creating a power of waiver of voidness of coverage for a particular reason that that constituted a waiver of such power a privilege this court for the held that subjective knowledge was not a requirement that any notice of facts which would cause a reasonable person to inquire further imposed a duty of investigation on bridgefield and that any failure to investigate would cost or to the waiver of all powers of privileges a reasonable search would have uncovered this quote went on to state that if the bridge to you accepted premium payments in twenty twelve would notice that those payments included mississippi payroll river oaks from which it could have determined that river oaks was operating in mississippi and after after that accepted premium payments based on mississippi payroll then river river oaks waived the notice provision about the operations in mississippi and its right to deny coverage this court also made clear that the notice issue was not whether river oaks satisfied a notice requirement under the terms of the policy which in fact the policy just sets provide notice and doesn't say how but this quote went on to state that the issue of whether the documents were sufficient to place bridge for you a notice that river oaks was operating in mississippi resulting in a waiver of brava roque's the bridge feels right to deny coverage was distinct from the issue of notice on the policy required that the case was remanded to the trial payroll and mississippi operations that bridge field was not on notice of the mississippi operations of the river oaks and mississippi employees and bridge to further claim they want even a notice of facts that would cause a reasonable person to investigate further as to whether miss mississippi operations were engaged in if this was the right stand it then the remand by this court with specific instructions on subjective knowledge was fain and useless because if alberici feels i just had to say was ought to have to say was i didn't see that part of those forms then there's no way we could ever prove that notice was provided and furthermore this court did not state that we had to prove that bridge for you actually read the noticed it was provided to them in that audit this court said that we had to simply prove that we provided adequate notice to bridge feel of mississippi operations to put them on a notice of a duty to investigate further ok the district court in this case specifically found that the documents that river oaks produced had to audit the form nine forty and a w two form the same documents that are verified in the contemporaneous audit report prepared by river oaks audit to contain references to the mississippi employees of river oaks the three page nine hundred forty form that was submitted at the audit the first line of its  river oaks is a multi state employer there are two lines below that to have specific information on payroll and nontaxable is that are included in mis grackles audit report and any attachment to that specifically les state where river oaks is doing work as mississippi and louisiana the information on the two page w two summary forms that river oaks admitted that it audit listed louisiana payroll and mississippi payroll separately and in order to reach a total payroll those two figures had to be audited added together to come up with the total payroll for river oaks the inquire as to where river oaks was operating and clearly the testimony showed she had such a duty miss greco testified under oath that she was there to establish the correct payroll and to classify it that if she had attained information on different locations where river oaks was operating during the course of that audit she would report that to bridge vo in bridge field would conduct appropriate investigation the audit and twelve by ms greco specifically states that she verified locations where river oaks was operating miss greco admitted under oath that in prior audit she had actually axed about whether river oaks operated in other states but she didn't ask about it in this particular audit under examination by the court itself ms greco admitted to her duties at the audit including verifying whether the insured where the insured was operating the record evidence specifically averred that the only documents reviewed by miss greco do on her audit with the form nine forty the w choose and the w three those a six pages of documents total operations of river a one those six pages of documents revokes there are no references in misc records audit report to her review of any other documents connected with the payroll of river oaks in determining what the payroll was for that of those audit reports nevertheless despite those profs statements and pleadings at the trial of this matter miss greco couldn't remember what document she reviewed to conduct the audit she said she didn't recall specifically seeing the ninth vine forty form she said she didn't remember what documents were presented to her at the audit but then she immediately went on to say but when i look at my audit report i see the w three is listed as being reviewed so i know that was reviewed because i wouldn't put it in my audit report if it wasn't reviewed miss greco wouldn't make the same statement with respect to the nine forty four minute w two that were also listed in the audit report because she knew full well that both of those forms specifically discussions disclosed these mississippi operations on cross examination miss greco admitted she routinely requested to form nine forty four audits she admitted she had previously said she might have information from the form nine forty four of audit report she admitted that the form nine forty was the only form that actually showed a specific figure for nontaxable zat were included in the order report and added together to find a total payroll payroll when she was referred to audit report in a reference to w two summaries she said that meant individual w tunes not the summaries the testimony showed that no individual w terms were ever produced in connection with a lot it's the only document produced was a w two summary it had to summary is a page and a half document that specifically lists the mississippi payroll of river oaks the trial court suggested that mr greco should not be charged with knowledge of information  hundreds of pages of documents produced a de audit and river oaks has never suggested that they should be but we have suggested that bridge who was charged with the knowledge of the information in the w two forms and the form nine forty that the audit report says was there a fide and at the prior pleadings by bridge feel sad were the only documents that mrs greco reviewed in connection with this audit those two form specifically disco's the mississippi operations mr greco says i didn't read that part of the forms i can't river oaks couldn't make misc reco read the whole form but river oaks could submit a form that disclosed mississippi operations and that's what they did it's no different than if river oaks it submitted a letter that said i'm now operating in mississippi the fall bridge here has to say as well i didn't read the letter then i could never put them on notice of anything we put them on notice with the forms that specifically listed the mississippi operations that it and that's irrefutable based on this record bridge for you could tennstedt the cases we cite do not support a finding of waiver merely if an insurer could or even should have known the facts that should trigger an investigation this court on the first review in bridge for one said that subjective knowledge is not required notice of facts that would cause a reasonable person to inquire further imposes a duty to investigate failure to do sue constitutes a waiver that's what happened to you we gave them to document that their report says they were of the view that said we were operating in mississippi and they didn't investigate any further they said we didn't read it well we can't make them read your honour's all we can do is provide notice and in accordance with what this court previously direct the bridge she also ignores the matthews decision that was decided by this court and it's important for two reasons matthews distinguished ixtapa from waivers affirmative defenses and it held that home insurance company was on notice of a potential issue of premiums after knowledge of the information that would give them a right to investigate further and perhaps deny coverage the other point about matthew's case is this this court distinguish between a stoppable and waiver and said they were two separate concepts on the louisiana law and even got into an inquiry as to whether raising a stoppable was the same as reserving a defense on waiver in this case bridge had accepted premiums after the audit before the accident and after the accident based on mississippi payroll so that issue that this first panel of this court addressed was resolved in favor of river rose we respectfully submit that the second issue should be are really are i think two issues in this appeal one is whether the insurer must have knowledge of the fact that trying to trigger a duty to investigate before there can be a waiver and then the second issue is whether here the district court on during the bench trial found correctly that there was no knowledge that issue that second issue is review under a clear air standard and that second find can only be reversed if there was no evidence to support the finding of the district court i think your honor bridgefield believes that this the judgments of the district court should be affirmed for three reasons the first is the issue of knowledge all the louisiana cases all of them require knowledge by the insurer before there can be a waiver and the reason for this is a good one the insurers being stripped of a contractual right there is no doubt here that river oaks did not give notice of its mississippi operations there is no doubt here that bridgeville had the right to deny coverage for the mississippi inquire whether the insurer had knowledge one of accepted premiums there is no doubt that knowledge is required there all of the cases require knowledge you don't have to have knowledge of every single fact that would be uncovered during an investigation but you have to have knowledge of something the prior panel judged in this year on the prior panel they did not say anything to the contrary they river oaks i believe takes a quote out of context when they mention that subjective knowledge is not required in fact that that quote begs the question subjective knowledge of what subjective knowledge of the full panoply of facts that one might uncover is not required but subjective knowledge of some fact that triggers a duty to investigate is required if there's only six pages and three or four of them only three or four of them reference either multi state work or mississippi how can you say you didn't see them in his point as you can always i can have a major for any that has your names on it san ever saw the name mr miles on it and you can't prove differently but if i said i looked at this page i mean there's not that many names on it there's four names one of court concluded that there were one hundred fifty pages of fact i think there was an exhibit with one hundred eighty seven pages this audit was one of six hundred that ms greco the auditor did per year she had a checklist mentality when she went through this audit six hundred dollars per year lasted about thirty minutes each when she goes she testified that she goes specifically to particular lines on particular pages with her checklist mentality to find the total payroll that she needs and that's what she does she does not take any of these documents with her so there are i think it's not just a few pages i think reverent want you to believe it's just a few pages but the district court in a trial of this matter solve the pages and listen to this correct as testimony and judge her credible credibility and determine that she did not see these documents these lines on these documents that had the specific references to mississippi and she'd judge that to be credible and on a clearer standard of review the only way that can be reversed is if there's no evidence of that and i think the fifth circuit laws strong on a the court makes credibility determinations that's one point of the second point i would say is when every time there's a bench trial there's a credibility determination i think river oaks made the point well how could we ever show sixteen settlement disputes they were called attached to that the insurer there wasn't a smoking gun with the insurer saying yes i reviewed these but what there was is the insurer denying the renewal of the policy based upon bench trial there's an argument that there's a judicial admission that wasn't even raised before the district court and wasn't even raised to the reply brief before your honor's there there was if it had been raised there would be discretion by the district court as to whether to accept that as additional admission there was at the trial there was cross examination about this grech of his deposition testimony about the nine forty and she said in her deposition testimony i did not necessarily review the night for the which was consistent with what she said at the trial the district court judge heard that listened to or looked her in the ah and believe that to be credible even if your honor she having reviewed the nine forty she also testified that if i had reviewed this i would look specifically at three things the federal tax id number the i would look at the which does not have anything about payroll excuse me about mississippi operations and again your honor this is the review of a bench trial where the district court looked at this evidence looked at all of the exhibits all hundred fifty something pages of them and listened to the witness and made a determination there so the fact of the louisiana law issue i think if you know some of the cases i think are very very including the two fifth circuit cases matthews i mentioned already discussed that one also devis financial as another fifth circuit case the judge wiener you were on the panel of in that case there was no dispute that the insurer had received and knew about information concerning allegations about the seaworthiness of a vessel that was undisputed the parties argued in that in that case the insurer argued well i needed to know the full facts i need to know the actual facts and the panel said no you don't you need to know of the allegations and you admitted you knew the allegations those are the two thess circuit cases they require the knowledge and again the reason they require the knowledge is because the contractual right has been stripped if we think about this case too if the actual knowledge is not required if actual knowledge is not required any kind of insurance audit can subject the insur slope for us to to go down i think it's also not supported by louisiana law here with respect to the factual arguments had a checklist or see there were a list of locations and she went down and said are you still operating at this location that's what she did she didn't verify all the locations in the in the universe river oaks also argued that if that there was an emission about the nine forty i think that's not the case i think there is not a mission she said she was not necessarily a review of the nine forty she said that she said reviewed payroll records that's what she testified she did she reviewed the payroll records and she reviewed the not the the w three form she testified that's how she got it this nontaxable number that river oaks focuses on that they say is only available on the form nine forty she testified she got that from the ducting the payroll number from the number on the w three in the result was a nontaxable that's the testimony that was before the trial court that's the testimony that the trial court credited and that the crowd in the trial court was right to credit because this greco with six hundred audits and gear shouldn't be charged with the knowledge of everything that's on every piece of paper there that's an unfair result for ms greco who has who has a  certificate from a community college and has a checklist mentality and that's what she does on her job there was also contention that miss greco verified that the nine forty was there that's i would invite the court to look at the trial transcript that is not an characterization of what miss that though said she said that she had an audit report and the nine forty was there in the room she didn't say that and the word verified on her audit checklist did not mean that she reviewed it she testified to that and the district court judge obviously credited that testimony on a clear error standard when there are when there is at a minimum one view of the evidence which is a district court judges and then still two views of the evidence and that shouldn't be reversed on a clear error standard here that affidavit wasn't even introduced there wasn't even attempt to impeach ms greco based on upon that  again your honors i would point you to the district court's conclusion where she said she did not read every line of every page of every document she concluded there were over one hundred fifty pages of documents there  i think in that circumstances you cannot charge should not charge ms greco with the knowledge of everything that is in these files otherwise you have waiver in all kinds of circumstances an first statement on direct was i don't remember what documents i reviewed this audit last question from her attorney was did you look at this form on its page to get that number she said yes his next question was but you know remember looking at this if the audit that's what the testimony was of miss greco in terms of how she would have come up with a number other than with the form nine forty your honor i did raise the admissions issue in my post trial brief in response to his brief i did point out that they specifically pled three times including after remains from this court that miss greco only reviewed the nine forty form the w two and it doesn't think if you're a trial with she did not twenty twelve audit was a year in review and a financial review to form nine forty w two and w three to verify the total amount of payroll for river oaks that's what she says she looked at the very next sentence in the affidavit she did not review the quarterly reports at the time of the audit and if she had reviewed any quarterly reports of other documents to verify the total amount of the payroll she would the audit report of having verified the payroll miles from said document that's what they said three times in pleadings before this court now they want to say there were one hundred fifty song documents and she couldn't judge they pled three looked at i mean have you ever been doing like form kind of work were you're going through and you're looking for a particular line on a particular form and every guy has the same form in mind seven is what you're looking for do you necessarily look at line three if you look at line seven lines in line seven six hundred times a year does that necessarily mean you go oh oh hey they check this box over here i wonder what that means i think that's what the judge found was that she was just kind of in a mode she's looking for specific information which is amounts of money and not where are these workers working but she was looking for information on where they were working she separately verified locations she had in my home was not in mississippi right the ones on the form know she had in the past x questions about your work in the mississippi she did nice to dis time it was all the look there's no doubt about it judge but the fact that i'm not a risk we gave her the swarms that had the information on it she picked the information from line two and three of that form line one says were a multi state employer at the detachment says we're working in mississippi what more can we do in terms of your saying is  you of your kind of failing to follow the contract with your own actually the first part of a militant that there is no provision in the contract as to how we give notice to bridge seal of anything in the first panel in this case also noted that providing notice of the contract in terms of complying with contract requirements is different from well that's a waiver purposes what we provided was sufficient to constitute a waiver of your argument appears to be because you really can't win any other way that is a matter of law if you provide forms that summer in those who are in for a not it wasn't about this you provide for the summer in those forms it shows that you're in some other state then that is notice a matter of law or knowledge as a matter of law well it's a session according to the first panel of this court to invoke a duty to investigate further to see if we're working in mississippi that's what the first panel of this course he'll be remembered for trial i mean we already knew what the for your honor i'm gonna not i can't figure it out either other than that the quote was concerned about whether we collected we pay premiums or mississippi payroll when the trial court ruled that we as a matter of fact it was conceded by bridgefield pay premium based on