209 So. 3d 166
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (26 landowners) sued for surface and subsurface contamination from historic oil & gas operations on nine tracts in Cameron Parish; suit filed March 3, 2011.
- Defendant BP moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs’ claims prescribed decades earlier; BP relied on aerial photos showing a persistent "white sandy area" and historical well records (last operations ~1951).
- BP submitted a 56-item Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and selected deposition excerpts showing that four plaintiffs observed the white sandy area; BP argued constructive or actual knowledge should be imputed to all plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs denied having actual or constructive knowledge until less than one year before suit (pleaded in petition), presented deposition excerpts and eight affidavits saying most owners rarely visited property and learned of the claims from counsel or relatives.
- The trial court granted BP’s summary judgment; the court of appeal reviewed de novo and found BP failed to meet the heightened summary‑judgment burden when pleading prescription.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BP proved plaintiffs' claims prescribed | Plaintiffs lacked actual or constructive knowledge until <1 year pre‑suit | Aerial photos & some depositions show long‑standing, open, visible damage (white sandy area) starting mid‑20th century, so prescription ran | Reversed — genuine issues of material fact remain; BP did not prove no dispute about accrual date |
| Proper burden on summary judgment asserting prescription | Burden remained on BP as movant to prove no genuine issue re: accrual date | BP treated motion as if burden shifted to plaintiffs (pointing‑out rule) | Held BP bore the exacting burden; trial court erred by shifting burden to plaintiffs |
| Whether constructive knowledge can be imputed across multiple owners/tracts | Knowledge must be shown (or imputed) individually; many plaintiffs rarely visited property | BP argued constructive knowledge from visible features and aerial photos should be imputed to all owners | Held genuine factual disputes exist about what each owner actually knew or should have known; imputation inappropriate on summary judgment |
| Whether white sandy area constituted "actual and appreciable" damage sufficient to start prescription | Plaintiffs: sandy area was not obviously contamination to them; cattle grazed; no agency notice; they relied on counsel/family to learn of contamination | BP: area resembled produced‑water spills; long‑standing visible condition should have put owners on inquiry notice | Held disputed — BP produced scant evidence connecting the feature to appreciable damage and to each owner’s knowledge; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 45 So.3d 991 (La. 2010) (defendant seeking summary judgment on prescription must prove no genuine dispute about when plaintiffs acquired knowledge)
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So.3d 234 (La. 2010) (discovery rule/contra non valentem in legacy contamination cases; plaintiffs’ apparent damage can start prescription)
- Labbe Service Garage, Inc. v. LBM Distributors, Inc., 650 So.2d 824 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1995) (heightened burden for movant asserting prescription on summary judgment; must prove accrual date by documentary evidence)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (summary judgment is seldom appropriate for subjective factual issues like knowledge)
- Cole v. Celotex Corp., 620 So.2d 1154 (La. 1993) (damage accrues for prescription only when it has manifested with sufficient certainty)
- Winterrowd v. Travelers Indem. Co., 462 So.2d 639 (La. 1985) (long delays between wrongful conduct and litigation may be explicable by the facts; courts examine notice/knowledge rather than mere passage of time)