99 So. 3d 1083
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege personal injuries and property damages from radioactive material releases at Harvey pipe yard (1946–1992).
- Plaintiffs opted out of class/mass tort actions in Orleans Parish CDC cases related to Harvey TERM and Lester v. Exxon Mobil.
- Settling Defendants (Conoco and Shell) submitted the Preliminary Harvey Term Class Action Settlement Agreement in the Orleans CDC.
- Settlement process included a Joint Motion for preliminary approval, with a notice plan; a continuance was sought to await appellate resolution.
- Defendants moved to dismiss their rights by filing peremptory exceptions of prescription; trial court sustained the exceptions.
- Plaintiffs appeal, arguing renunciation of prescription by the Settling Defendants and improper reliance on Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prescription was renounced by Settling Defendants | Adams argues settlement participation tacitly renounced prescription. | Conoco and Shell argue settlement terms preserve defenses and no renunciation occurred. | Renunciation found; tacitly abandoned prescription defenses. |
| Whether Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp. governs prescriptive arguments | Lester should control prescriptive pleas and foreclose dismissal. | Lester is not controlling; inconsistent with other circuits and should be reversed. | Not addressed on remand due to renunciation finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taranto v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 62 So.3d 721 (La. 2011) (standard for manifest-error review in prescription rulings)
- Geiger v. State ex rel. Dept, of Health and Hasp., 815 So.2d 80 (La. 2002) (renunciation must be clear, direct, absolute)
- Lima v. Schmidt, 595 So.2d 624 (La. 1992) (renunciation must be manifested by words or actions)
- Neese v. Papa John’s Pizza, 44 So.3d 321 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2010) (renunciation destroys effect of prescription that has run)
- Kenner Fire Fighters Ass’n Local No. 14-27 v. City of Kenner, 25 So.3d 147 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2009) (compromise is a written contract; interpretation governs)
- Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 42 So.3d 1071 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2010) (prescriptive issues in Harvey TERM related actions)