Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
102 So. 3d 148
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Sixteen plaintiffs sued Exxon Mobil and ITCO for personal injuries from exposure to NORM at the ITCO Harvey pipe yard, with trial in Jefferson Parish, Jefferson Parish venue, after prior related suits and class actions.
- Pollard CDC filed May 23, 2001; Lester CDC filed December 20, 2002; and Ernesto Soto joined via amendment October 24, 2003, raising issues of prescription interruption and relation back.
- The jury returned verdicts in favor of all sixteen plaintiffs against Exxon Mobil, awarding damages for increased cancer risk but not for medical monitoring or punitive damages; ITCO was not found at fault.
- Exxon Mobil objected to prescription, arguing the claims were prescribed for all groups, and contended contra non valentem did not toll prescription for non-Pollard plaintiffs.
- Trial court denied prescription exception, applying contra non valentem to interrupt prescription; court relied on Levy to hold Pollard interrupted Lester, and held Soto’s amendment related back.
- On appeal, the majority affirmed the trial court’s prescription ruling and the damages award for increased cancer risk; the majority also rejected plaintiffs’ arguments for punitive damages, medical monitoring, and low general damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prescription interruption applicable to all plaintiffs | Pollard interrupted Lester; Soto relates back | All claims prescribed; no interruption for non-Pollard | No reversible error; prescription interruption upheld |
| Damages for increased risk of cancer | Award appropriate for future risk of cancer | No present injury; risk-based damages improper | Affirmed; damages for increased risk upheld |
| Punitive damages | Wanton/reckless conduct justifies punitive damages for several plaintiffs | No proof of actual injury; punitive damages not warranted | Directed verdict against punitive damages affirmed |
| Medical monitoring damages | Medical monitoring recoverable as special damages | Medical monitoring not compensable absent manifest physical injury | Affirmed; no medical monitoring recovery |
| General damages amount | General damages should reflect harm from exposure | Award was not abusively low given circumstances | Affirmed; general damages not abusively low |
Key Cases Cited
- Taranto v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 62 So.3d 721 (La. 2011) (Taranto confirms interruption standards for class actions and related tolling)
- Levy v. Stelly, 277 So.2d 194 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1973) (Interruption of prescription via pending second suit when first suit pending)
- Lester I, 42 So.3d 1071 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (Pollard opt-out tolling not applicable to Amending Petition in Lester context)
- Katz v. Allstate, 917 So.2d 443 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2005) (Relates to relation back and amendments in class-action context)
- Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 475 So.2d 1040 (La.1985) (Amendment relating back when arising from same conduct and defendant knew of new plaintiff)
- Cole v. Celotex Corp., 620 So.2d 1154 (La.1993) (Discovery rule for contra non valentem; knowledge tolling considerations)
- Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1979) (Two-part test for appellate review of factual findings)
- Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 628 So.2d 1257 (La.1993) (Standards for assessing damages and deference to fact-finder)