IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30872

BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 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 PlaintiffAppellee 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 14, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30872 Document: 00513911162 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2017
No. 16-30872

2

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. 

 

1 A more detailed discussion of the factual history of this case is contained in our 

previous opinion. See Bridgefield Cas. Ins. Co. v. River Oaks Mgmt., Inc., 590 F. App’x 308 

(5th Cir. 2014). 

 Case: 16-30872 Document: 00513911162 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2017