Duck v. Hunt Oil Co.
134 So. 3d 114
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- John C. Duck bought a 5.2-acre tract in Concordia Parish in 2004; the deed contained no assignment of preexisting claims. After a well on the tract produced only saltwater, Duck sued multiple oil-related defendants in 2010 seeking costs to remediate alleged contamination from historical operations under 1950–51 mineral leases (the Burrill and Farrar leases).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment and/or filed exceptions of no cause/no right of action asserting the Eagle Pipe subsequent-purchaser rule bars recovery for pre-purchase property damage. The trial court granted those motions/exceptions and dismissed Duck’s claims. Duck appealed.
- Duck argued mineral leases are "real rights" under the Mineral Code, creating correlative real obligations that pass to subsequent acquirers and that the leases contain stipulations pour autrui (third‑party beneficiary clauses) permitting his direct contract claim.
- Defendants relied on Eagle Pipe v. Amerada Hess, asserting a subsequent purchaser cannot sue for property damage caused before purchase absent assignment or subrogation of the former owner’s personal right to sue.
- The court distinguished Eagle Pipe (which involved a surface lease) and examined whether mineral leases here operate differently, including whether the leases created stipulations pour autrui in favor of later purchasers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Eagle Pipe subsequent‑purchaser rule | Duck: Eagle Pipe should not bar claims arising under mineral leases because mineral rights are "real rights" and correlative obligations attach to the land. | Defendants: Eagle Pipe bars subsequent purchasers from suing for pre‑purchase property damage absent assignment/subrogation. | Court: Eagle Pipe addressed surface leases and expressly did not decide mineral lease situations; trial court erred applying Eagle Pipe to bar Duck’s claims. |
| Do mineral leases automatically pass a right to sue to subsequent purchasers? | Duck: Mineral leases are real rights under La. R.S. 31:16, so obligations pass to later acquirers without assignment. | Defendants: Rights to sue are personal and do not pass absent assignment or privity. | Court: Mineral leases are a limited personal servitude in nature; they do not automatically transfer a personal right to sue on expiration—privity, assignment, or stipulation pour autrui is required. |
| Whether the Burrill and Farrar leases contain stipulations pour autrui benefiting later owners | Duck: Damage clauses ("Lessee shall be responsible for all damages caused by Lessee’s operations") create third‑party beneficiary rights for subsequent purchasers harmed by contamination. | Defendants: Any benefit to later purchasers is incidental and not a manifest, specific third‑party stipulation. | Court: The Burrill and Farrar damage clauses are like those in Hazelwood/Andrepont (unlimited "all damages" language) and do create a stipulation pour autrui in favor of third parties such as Duck. |
| Validity of summary judgment/exceptions disposing of Duck’s claims | Duck: Disposition was incorrect because genuine issues remain on lease‑based rights and third‑party beneficiary status. | Defendants: No right/cause of action; judgment appropriate as a matter of law. | Court: Reversed trial court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings because Eagle Pipe was inapplicable and Duck adequately pleaded a third‑party beneficiary claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So.3d 246 (La. 2011) (holds subsequent purchaser cannot recover for pre‑sale property damage absent assignment/subrogation of the former owner’s personal right; court limited its holding re: mineral leases)
- Frank C. Minvielle, L.L.C. v. IMC Global Operations, Inc., 380 F. Supp. 2d 755 (W.D. La. 2004) (mineral lease characterized as a limited personal servitude; right to sue does not automatically pass to subsequent purchasers)
- Hazelwood Farm, Inc. v. Liberty Oil & Gas Corp., 844 So.2d 380 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2003) (mineral lease damage clause interpreted as creating a stipulation pour autrui favoring later property owners)
- Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Co., 231 So.2d 347 (La. 1969) (lease language "responsible for all damages caused by lessee’s operations" found to create third‑party beneficiary rights)
- LeJeune Bros., Inc. v. Goodrich Petroleum Co., L.L.C., 981 So.2d 23 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2007) (distinguishes damage clause limiting liability to lessor’s damages and rejects third‑party beneficiary status where clause limited to lessor)