Boone v. Conoco Phillips Co.
139 So. 3d 1047
| La. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Carlos and Lori Boone purchased 18.66 acres in August 2005 that were subject to reserved mineral rights and existing oil-and-gas leases; they later sued for alleged pre-acquisition surface contamination and failure to restore the property.
- EnerQuest previously operated wells on the tract but sold all leases, wells, equipment, and surface-restoration obligations to Petro “E” effective May 1, 2004, and ceased operations April 30, 2004.
- The Boones sued multiple operators in May 2010 and later (2012) sought to add assignments from prior owners (Lagneaux and Primeaux) and new causes (fraud, conspiracy, LEQA).
- EnerQuest moved for summary judgment and pled prescription, arguing the Boones had no personal or contractual right to sue EnerQuest for pre-2005 damage absent a valid assignment and that any tort claims had prescribed.
- Trial court granted EnerQuest’s motion and exception of prescription; the Boones appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boones may sue EnerQuest for property damage that occurred before Boones purchased the land | Boones: subsequent-purchaser doctrine does not bar contract claims; they are assignees or third-party beneficiaries (stipulation pour autrui) under prior leases and a surviving surface lease (effective to 2012) | EnerQuest: subsequent-purchaser doctrine bars purchaser’s suit for pre-acquisition damage absent explicit assignment; Boones were not parties to leases and received no assignment of pre-2005 rights | Held: Barred — purchaser has no right to sue lessee for pre-purchase damage absent explicit assignment; deeds here did not transfer such personal rights |
| Validity and timeliness of 2012 assignments from prior owners | Boones: assignments from Lagneaux and Primeaux (Sept. 2012) confer rights to sue EnerQuest | EnerQuest: assignments are invalid or ineffective because former owners’ tort rights had prescribed and Primeaux never owned the contractual claims to assign | Held: Assignments do not create a viable claim — Lagneaux’s and Primeaux’s tort claims had prescribed (or were never owned by Primeaux), so nothing timely passed |
| Stipulation pour autrui / third-party beneficiary status under prior leases | Boones: certain lease language creates a third-party beneficiary right to recover damages (relying on Andrepont/Magnolia/Hazelwood) | EnerQuest: surface lease lacks language creating a clear third-party benefit; parties did not intend benefit to future surface purchaser; no privity or factual/legal relationship | Held: No stipulation pour autrui — lease language and circumstances do not manifest clear intent to benefit Boones |
| Relation back of claims in 2012 supplemental petition to the original 2010 petition (to avoid prescription) | Boones: new allegations/assignments relate back to the original suit filed in 2010 | EnerQuest: the assignments and new causes arose after filing and are not exigible at the time of the original petition, so relation-back does not apply | Held: No relation back — claims based on 2012 assignments are supplemental and do not relate back to 2010; prescription bars the asserted pre-acquisition tort claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So.3d 246 (La. 2011) (explains subsequent-purchaser doctrine and distinction between real rights and personal rights)
- Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Co., 231 So.2d 347 (La. 1969) (establishes factors and precedent for stipulation pour autrui under oil-and-gas leases)
- Magnolia Coal Terminal v. Phillips Oil Co., 576 So.2d 475 (La. 1991) (discusses recovery under lease language providing lessee liability for damages)
- Broussard v. Northcott Exploration Co., Inc., 481 So.2d 125 (La. 1986) (rejects third-party beneficiary where lease language does not clearly intend benefit to third party)
- Joseph v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 2, 989 So.2d 1206 (La. 2006) (articulates modern criteria for stipulation pour autrui: clear intent, certain benefit, not mere incident)
- Prados v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 329 So.2d 744 (La. 1975) (illustrates limits on purchaser’s rights to sue for pre-purchase damage)
- LeJeune Bros., Inc. v. Goodrich Petroleum Co., 981 So.2d 23 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2007) (applies subsequent-purchaser and stipulation principles; expired lease cannot be assigned)
- Wagoner v. Chevron USA Inc., 55 So.3d 12 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2010) (similar facts; no stipulation pour autrui and subsequent purchaser doctrine bars pre-acquisition claims)