Dwayne Chauvin v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 158 So. 3d 761

Background

Dwayne Chauvin previously sued Shell (Lester litigation) alleging occupational exposure to NORM and settled via a Confidential Settlement Agreement in February 2011 that released "any and all" claims arising from that exposure, expressly including "punitive" and "exemplary" damages.
The Agreement expressly reserved only "claims for all damages for cancer arising from [Chauvin] diagnosed after the Effective Date."
After the settlement, Chauvin was diagnosed with renal cancer (August 2011) and filed a new suit (April 2012) seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on that diagnosis.
Shell moved for summary judgment and filed an exception of res judicata, arguing punitive damages were released in the prior settlement; the district court dismissed punitive/exemplary claims but allowed compensatory claims for the newly diagnosed cancer.
The court of appeal reversed, finding Chauvin’s reservation of rights for damages from future-diagnosed cancer included punitive damages under La. Rev. Stat. 13:4232(A)(3).
The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review and reinstated the trial court, holding Chauvin’s punitive-damages claim is barred by res judicata because punitive damages are tied to the defendant’s conduct and were released in the settlement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Chauvin’s punitive-damages claim arising from later-diagnosed cancer	Chauvin: reservation for "all damages" for future-diagnosed cancer includes punitive damages	Shell: Agreement explicitly released punitive/exemplary damages; permitting new punitive claim would allow multiple punishments for same conduct	Held: Res judicata bars the punitive claim; punitive damages were released and relate to conduct, not specific injury
Whether punitive damages are tethered to a particular injury such that a later diagnosis creates a new punitive cause of action	Chauvin: punitive damages are relative to harm and thus tied to the specific injury, so a later, greater injury gives rise to a new punitive claim	Shell: punitive damages punish conduct and are distinct from compensatory harms; only one punitive claim arises from the same misconduct	Held: Punitive damages relate to defendant’s conduct and are separate from compensatory damages; not tied to successive injuries from same conduct
Whether the reservation-of-rights exception to res judicata (La. Rev. Stat. 13:4232(A)(3)) applies	Chauvin: his reservation for future cancer damages reserved punitive damages too	Shell: reservation was limited to damages for future-diagnosed cancer and did not negate the explicit release of punitive damages	Held: No exception applies — reservation did not specifically reserve punitive/exemplary damages, which were expressly released
Whether allowing punitive claims post-settlement would permit multiple punitive awards for same misconduct	Chauvin: later diagnosis changes quantum and justifies a new punitive claim	Shell: would allow multiple punishments for same misconduct and undermine the settlement	Held: Court agreed with Shell; allowing a second punitive claim would permit multiple punitive awards for identical conduct and is barred by res judicata

Key Cases Cited

Ross v. Conoco, Inc., 828 So.2d 546 (La. 2002) (punitive damages are punitive and not compensatory; disfavored and strictly construed)
Mosing v. Domas, 830 So.2d 967 (La. 2002) (punitive damages focus on defendant’s conduct rather than plaintiff’s loss)
Billiot v. B.P. Oil Co., 645 So.2d 604 (La. 1994) (punitive damages separate from compensatory damages; purpose is punishment and deterrence)
Anderson v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 798 So.2d 93 (La. 2001) (statutory punitive-damages cause examined and characterized)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (distinguishes compensatory and punitive purposes; proportionality guideposts for punitive awards)
Burguieres v. Pollingue, 843 So.2d 1049 (La. 2003) (res judicata framework under La. Rev. Stat. 13:4231)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, 993 So.2d 187 (La. 2008) (transactional test for res judicata post-1990 amendment)
Ortego v. State Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 689 So.2d 1358 (La. 1997) (compromise as a settlement; compromise interpreted as contract between parties)
BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (guideposts for assessing excessiveness of punitive damages)