104 So. 3d 16
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Winn owned working interests in two gas wells in Ouachita Parish; Lieber No. B-1 was slated for plugging by the DNR under the Abandoned Well Program.
- DNR employee Mott incorrectly identified and directed SSCI to plug the wrong well (Lieber No. B-1) when it was actually Lieber No. 2.
- SSCI plugged the identified well on Sept. 8, 2004, based on Mott's directions; later found to be the wrong well.
- Winn, who had never visited the sites, discovered the plugged well years later using GPS; he sued the DNR, SSCI, and MC Gas, Inc. for damages.
- DNR argued Winn suffered no damages; Shell opined damages were zero or a potential economic gain from not plugging; trial court granted SSCI’s then DNR’s motions for summary judgment; Winn appealed the DNR ruling only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages proving under duty-risk theory | Winn; damages exist from production loss and plugging costs | DNR; no damages shown; plugging was a liability not an asset | Damages not shown; absence of expert damages evidence defeats claim |
| Was SSCI properly granted summary judgment | Winn argues SSCI negligence could be shown | SSCI complied with DNR instruction and no negligence | Yes; undisputed that SSCI plugged the directed well and no negligence shown |
| Admissibility of Winn's damages affidavit | Winn's damages testimony should be admissible | Winn not qualified to testify on damages | Affidavit excluded; expert testimony needed; no damages evidence remaining |
| Appellate scope of review for SSCI judgment | Only the DNR judgment was properly appealable | Appeal limited to the DNR judgment; SSCI judgment not properly before court |
Key Cases Cited
- Bamburg v. St. Francis Medical Center, 30 So.3d 1071 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2010) (de novo review of summary judgment standard; multi-issue standard guidance)
- Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 755 So.2d 226 (La. 2/29/00) (summary judgment burden of proof; movant need show absence of facts; non-movant must prove)
- Carpenter v. Foremost Signature Ins. Co., 87 So.3d 264 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/29/12) (duty-risk elements and burden of proof)
- Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc., 923 So.2d 627 (La. 2006) (five elements of duty-risk; preponderance standard)
- Hargrove v. Goods, 953 So.2d 968 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2007) (expert qualification and admissibility under Article 967)