Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp.

Citation79 So.3d 246
Decision Date13 January 2012
Docket Number2010–C–2279,2010–C–2275,Nos. 2010–C–2267,2010–C–2272,2010–C–2289.,s. 2010–C–2267
PartiesEAGLE PIPE AND SUPPLY, INC. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Gaudry, Ranson, Higgins & Gremillion, LLC, Michael Don Peytavin, Thomas Livingston Gaudry, Jr., Gretna, LA, for Applicant (No. 2010–C–2267).

Adams & Reese, LLP, Martin A. Stern, Thomas Arnoult Rayer, Jr., New Orleans, LA, Babineaux, Poche, Anthony & Slavich, LLC, Olivia S. Regard, Lafayette, LA, Curry & Friend, Christoffer Carter Friend, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, LLC, Terrence Kent Knister, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Michael R. Phillips, Lapeyre & Lapeyre, Etienne Cassard Lapeyre, LeBlanc Bland PLLC, Elizabeth S. Wheeler, New Orleans, LA, Rodney & Etter, LLC, Roy J. Rodney, Jr., Lafayette, LA, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister, Thomas E. Balhoff, Baton Rouge, LA, Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, David Laine Morgan, Lake Charles, LA, The Murray Law Firm, Korey Arthur Nelson, Arthur M. Murray, Stephen Barnett Murray, New Orleans, LA, The Sonnier Firm, Charles R. Sonnier, Abbeville, LA, for Respondent (No. 2010–C–2267).

Johnson Gray McNamara, LLC, Mary Susan Johnson, Chadwick James Mollere, Rodney & Etter, LLC, Roy J. Rodney, Jr., Lafayette, LA, for Applicant (No. 2010–C–2272).Adams & Reese, LLP, Martin A. Stern, Thomas Arnoult Rayer, Jr., New Orleans, LA, Babineaux, Poche, Anthony & Slavich, LLC, Olivia S. Regard, Lafayette, LA, Curry & Friend, Christoffer Carter Friend, New Orleans, LA, Gaudry, Ranson, Higgins & Gremillion, LLC, Michael Don Peytavin, Gretna, LA, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, LLC, Terrence Kent Knister, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, Judith V. Windhorst, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Michael R. Phillips, Lapeyre & Lapeyre, Etienne Cassard Lapeyre, LeBlanc Bland PLLC, Joseph E. LeBlanc, Jr., Elizabeth S. Wheeler, New Orleans, LA, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister, Thomas E. Balhoff, Baton Rouge, LA, Smith Stag, LLC, Lloyd Stafford Jolibois, Jr., New Orleans, LA, Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, David Laine Morgan, Lake Charles, LA, The Martin Law Firm, APLC, Dale Patrick Martin, Broussard, LA, The Murray Law Firm, Korey Arthur Nelson, Arthur M. Murray, Stephen Barnett Murray, New Orleans, LA, The Sonnier Firm, Charles R. Sonnier, Abbeville, LA, for Respondent (No. 2010–C–2272).Babineaux, Poche, Anthony & Slavich, LLC, Olivia S. Regard, Lafayette, LA, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, Judith V. Windhorst, New Orleans, LA, for Applicant (No. 2010–C–2275).Adams & Reese, LLP, Martin A. Stern, Thomas Arnoult Rayer, Jr., Curry & Friend, Christoffer Carter Friend, New Orleans, LA, Gaudry, Ranson, Higgins & Gremillion, LLC, Michael Don Peytavin, Gretna, LA, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, LLC, Terrence Kent Knister, New Orleans, LA, Johnson Gray McNamara, LLC, Mary Susan Johnson, Lafayette, LA, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Michael R. Phillips, Lapeyre & Lapeyre, Etienne Cassard Lapeyre, LeBlanc Bland PLLC, Elizabeth S. Wheeler, New Orleans, LA, Rodney & Etter, LLC, Roy J. Rodney, Jr., Lafayette, LA, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister, Thomas E. Balhoff, Baton Rouge, LA, Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, David Laine Morgan, Lake Charles, LA, The Martin Law Firm, APLC, Dale Patrick Martin, Broussard, LA, The Murray Law Firm, Korey Arthur Nelson, Arthur M. Murray, Stephen Barnett Murray, New Orleans, LA, The Sonnier Firm, Charles R. Sonnier, Abbeville, LA, for Respondent (No. 2010–C–2275).Thomas Arnoult Rayer, Jr., New Orleans, LA, for Applicant (No. 2010–C–2279).Adams & Reese, LLP, Martin A. Stern, New Orleans, LA, Babineaux, Poche, Anthony & Slavich, LLC, Olivia S. Regard, Lafayette, LA, Curry & Friend, Christoffer Carter Friend, New Orleans, LA, Gaudry, Ranson, Higgins & Gremillion, LLC, Michael Don Peytavin, Gretna, LA, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, LLC, Terrence Kent Knister, New Orleans, LA, Johnson Gray McNamara, LLC, Mary Susan Johnson, Lafayette, LA, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, Judith V. Windhorst, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Michael R. Phillips, Lapeyre & Lapeyre, Etienne Cassard Lapeyre, LeBlanc Bland PLLC, Elizabeth S. Wheeler, New Orleans, LA, Rodney & Etter, LLC, Roy J. Rodney, Jr., Lafayette, LA, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister, Thomas E. Balhoff, Baton Rouge, LA, Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, David Laine Morgan, Lake Charles, LA, The Martin Law Firm, APLC, Dale Patrick Martin, Broussard, LA, The Murray Law Firm, Korey Arthur Nelson, Arthur M. Murray, Stephen Barnett Murray, New Orleans, LA, The Sonnier Firm, Charles R. Sonnier, Abbeville, LA, for Respondent (No. 2010–C–2279).CLARK, Justice.1

[2010-2267 (La. 1] The issue presented in these consolidated matters arises from the sale of land to the plaintiff, who later discovered that the land was allegedly contaminated with radioactive material. The plaintiff filed suit against the former landowners and the oil and trucking companies allegedly responsible for the contamination. In the district court, exceptions of no right of action raised by the oil and trucking companies were granted. The court of appeal initially affirmed this decision, but reversed on rehearing.

We granted writs to determine whether a subsequent purchaser of property has the right to sue a third party for non-apparent property damages inflicted before the sale in the absence of the assignment of or subrogation to that right. After review, we find the fundamental principles of Louisiana property law compel the conclusion that such a right of action is not permitted under the law. Instead, the subsequent purchaser has the right to seek rescission of the sale, reduction of the purchase price, or other legal remedies. For the following reasons, we hold the appellate court on [2010-2267 (La. 2] rehearing erred by reversing the district court's granting of the peremptory exceptions of no right of action on behalf of the oil and trucking companies. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeal's decision on rehearing and reinstate the ruling of the district court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This matter is before the court on an exception of no right of action. Although evidence is admissible on the trial of such an objection “to support or controvert any of the objections pleaded,” La. C.C.P. art. 931, the only evidence admitted at the hearing in this case was the bill of sale for the property at issue. This bill of sale was also attached to the petition. Consequently, our recitation of the facts is necessarily obtained from the allegations in the petition. “For purposes of the exception all well pleaded facts in the petition must be taken as true.” Harwood Oil & Min. Co. v. Black, 240 La. 641, 649, 124 So.2d 764, 766–767 (1960), superceded by statute on other grounds, recognized in Salvex, Inc. v. Lewis, 546 So.2d 1309 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989).

On July 15, 2008, Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. (“Eagle Pipe” or plaintiff) filed a petition for damages in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, negligence, strict liability, redhibition, fraud and conspiracy in connection with property Eagle Pipe acquired two decades earlier.2 Named in the petition were four groups of defendants: (1) ten oil companies, collectively referred to as the “Oil Company Defendants;” 3 (2) eight trucking [2010-2267 (La. 3] companies, collectively referred to as the “Trucking Company/Transporter Defendants;” 4 (3) Robert Bridges, Patsy Tremble Bridges and Edmund J. Baudoin, Jr., collectively referred to as the “Former Property–Owner Defendants;” 5 and (4) ABC Insurance Company, Inc.6

According to the petition, more than twenty years ago, on April 22, 1988, Eagle Pipe purchased property in Lafayette Parish from the Former Property Owner Defendants.7 For several years before the sale, from 1981 to 1988, the Former Property Owner Defendants allegedly leased the property at issue to Union Pipe and Supply, Inc. (“Union Pipe”), which operated a pipe yard or pipe cleaning facility on the property. In conducting its business, Union Pipe allegedly bought, cleaned, stored and sold used oilfield tubing from the Oil Company Defendants. The Trucking Company/Transporter Defendants allegedly transported the tubing from the Oil Company Defendants to Union Pipe's facilities.

Eagle Pipe asserted that radioactive scale known by the acronym TENORM was removed from the tubing or pipes during Union Pipe's cleaning process and was deposited onto the surface of the pipe yard, contaminating the soil where Eagle Pipe now conducts its business.8 Eagle Pipe claimed it became aware of the alleged [2010-2267 (La. 4] contamination of its property after the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“La. DEQ”) conducted a field interview and found Eagle Pipe to be in violation of a number of TENORM exposure regulations. The La. DEQ allegedly found TENORM exposure levels on the property which exceeded the regulatory criteria for unrestricted use of property and posed a health hazard to both Eagle Pipe and the public. Eagle Pipe asserted subsequent testing by La. DEQ prompted the agency to issue an order for the remediation of the property. Sometime thereafter, Eagle Pipe filed its suit.9

The petition alleged Eagle Pipe has never cleaned pipe on its premises. Therefore, the plaintiff asserted all of the TENORM allegedly present on the property is the result of Union Pipe's activities in cleaning hazardous and radioactive contaminated pipe from the Oil Company Defendants,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
216 cases
  • Grace Ranch, L.L.C. v. BP Am. Prod. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 24, 2021
    ...and gas operators in tort or contract for damage inflicted before the purchasers acquired the property. Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp. , 79 So.3d 246, 279–83 (La. 2011).As a result, legacy plaintiffs shifted their efforts to enforcing the State's statutory remedies for cont......
  • Crooks v. Department Of Natural Resources
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • December 28, 2018
    ... ... Nonetheless, citing Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp. , ... ...
  • State v. La. Land & Exploration Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • May 6, 2020
    ... ... FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Union Oil Company of California, Chevron ... 9 (La. 11/29/06), 943 So.2d 1037, 1045. Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp. , ... ...
  • Campo v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • December 23, 2021
    ...[O]ur civilian tradition does not recognize the doctrine of stare decisis in our state." Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So.3d 246, 256 (La. 2011) (quoting Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 774 So.2d 119, 128 (La. 2000), opinion corrected on reh'g, 782 So.2d 573 (La. 2001)). Rat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Oil in the Family': Obtaining the Requisite Consent to Conduct Operations on Co-owned Land or Mineral Servitudes
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 73-3, April 2013
    • April 1, 2013
    ...judicially examined in the context of the “subsequent purchaser doctrine.” See, e.g. , Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So. 3d 246 (La. 2011). 192. See supra text accompanying notes 184–88. 193. “To the extent of the interest acquired, an assignee or sublessee acquires th......
  • CERTIFICATION COMES OF AGE: REFLECTIONS ON THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF COOPERATIVE JUDICIAL FEDERALISM.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 95 No. 5, May 2020
    • May 1, 2020
    ...(61) Id. at 671. (62) 854 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2017). (63) Id. at 312 (quoting Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So. 3d 246, 256-57 (La. (64) Id. at 312-13 (quoting Eagle Pipe, 79 So. 3d at 281 n.80). (65) Id. at 313. (66) Id. at 315 (footnotes omitted) (quoting Jefferso......
  • Chapter 14 OIL AND GAS LAW UPDATE—LOUISIANA AND THE EAST
    • United States
    • FNREL - Annual Institute Vol. 68 Natural Resources and Energy Law Institute (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...So. 3d 674, writ denied, 2021-01610 (La. 1/12/22), 330 So. 3d 614 (mem.).[20] Id. at 677.[21] Id. at 678.[22] 2010-2267 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So. 3d 246. The Eagle Pipe case involved a surface lease for a pipe yard, not a mineral lease, and the supreme court there noted that it "express[ed] no......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT