222 So. 3d 51
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2009 Gerald P. Moore sued Chevron-related defendants and LDEQ for alleged contamination of immovable property he acquired by donation, claiming environmental site assessments in 2003 revealed contamination from prior gas-station operations.
- Moore alleges he informed Chevron and LDEQ of the 2003 assessment results and that LDEQ investigated until issuing a no-further-action report in 2008.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment in 2016, arguing Moore’s claims were prescribed because he had actual or constructive knowledge of the damage in 2003.
- The trial court excluded many of Moore’s documentary exhibits as not competent summary-judgment evidence under La. C.C.P. art. 966 and relied primarily on Moore’s deposition and one affidavit offered by Moore.
- The court found prescription was triggered in 2003, contra non valentem did not apply, and Moore’s redhibition claim was also prescribed; the court denied Moore’s motion to continue and granted summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did liberative prescription for property-damage claims begin? | Moore: Prescription did not begin in 2003 because he was still investigating and LDEQ involvement tolled or stopped time. | Defendants: Moore had actual/constructive knowledge in 2003 (site assessments, attorney letters), so the one-year prescriptive period began then. | Triggered in 2003; one-year prescription ran; suit filed in 2009 was prescribed. |
| Are Moore’s excluded documents admissible on summary judgment? | Moore: Numerous letters and a sale document should be considered. | Defendants: Those documents are not among the categories allowed by Art. 966 and are inadmissible. | Trial court properly excluded them; only affidavits, depositions, pleadings considered. |
| Does contra non valentem or equitable tolling apply to stop prescription? | Moore: Defendants’ actions and LDEQ involvement tolled prescription or estopped defendants (time "stopped"). | Defendants: No legal basis to toll; Moore had constructive knowledge; no evidence defendants prevented suit. | Contra non valentem does not apply; Wilkerson affidavit insufficient to interrupt prescription. |
| Are redhibition claims timely? | Moore: He is subrogated to donor’s warranty claims; defect discovery ties to 2003 assessments. | Defendants: Redhibition prescribes one year from discovery; Moore discovered defect in 2003, so claim prescribed. | Redhibition claim is prescribed; action untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hogg v. Chevron USA Inc., 45 So.3d 991 (La. 2010) (one-year prescription for delictual immovable-property damage begins on actual or constructive knowledge)
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So.3d 234 (La. 2010) (defines constructive knowledge and contra non valentem discovery rule)
- Jackson v. City of New Orleans, 144 So.3d 876 (La. 2014) (summary judgment standards and definition of genuine issue of material fact)
- Young v. International Paper Co., 155 So. 231 (La. 1934) (early articulation of constructive knowledge principle)