Walton v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
2015 La. App. LEXIS 368
| La. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Landowners acquired the property in 2002; it is burdened by mineral leases and a mineral servitude.
- Two historic leases (Sandridge, 1940s; Wainwright, 1941) are still in effect and operated by McGowan and BP/Mobil predecessors.
- Sher-Di-Je waived prior surface-damage claims for $10,000 in 1980, and defendants argue this binds successors and forecloses pre-1980 damages.
- Landowners filed suit for environmental damages and remediation, including regulatory cleanup under Act 312 (La. R.S. 30:29), but did not allege specific pre-2002 damages in detail.
- Trial court dismissed pre-purchase damages under the subsequent purchaser doctrine; remediations under Act 312 and other post-purchase claims remained, and the judgment was certified for appeal.
- Appellate issue centers on whether the Landowners have rights to pre-purchase damages despite ownership after the alleged acts, and whether remediation claims under Act 312 survive as unadjudicated claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-purchase damages are barred by the subsequent purchaser doctrine. | Landowners contend doctrine does not bar their post-purchase rights to remediation. | Defendants argue pre-purchase damages are barred since acts occurred before Landowners’ ownership. | Affirmed; pre-purchase damages dismissed under subsequent purchaser doctrine. |
| Whether remediation damages under Act 312 survive as unadjudicated claims separate from pre-purchase damages. | Remediation damages to fund a feasible plan under Act 312 remain viable against all defendants. | Remediation under Act 312 is ancillary and not part of pre-purchase damage dismissal; may remain unadjudicated. | Remediation claims under Act 312 remain unadjudicated and viable against defendants. |
| Whether the trial court properly limited its ruling to pre-purchase damages and did not dismiss the regulatory cleanup rights entirely. | Trial court’s ruling improperly forecloses all remedies by dismissing only pre-purchase damages. | Partial judgment appropriately addressed only pre-purchase damages; regulatory cleanup rights persist. | Partial judgment proper; regulatory cleanup rights remain in suit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267 (La. 2011) (subsequent purchaser doctrine excludes pre-purchase recovery absent assignment)
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368 (La. 2010) (remediation damages tied to ongoing lease obligations; continuing tort analysis)
- State v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co., 12-0884 (La. 2013) (Act 312 framework; categories of damages and remedies for legacy environmental claims)
- Walton v. Burns, 151 So.3d 616 (La.App.2d Cir. 2013) (legacy litigation context and joinder of servitude owners; Walton I reference)
- Corbello v. Iowa Production, 850 So.2d 686 (La. 2003) (legacy environmental litigation framework citation)