Heirs of Lydia Bergeron, Wife of/and Sidney J. Simoneaux Land Partnership, a Limited Partnership v. B-P Amoco, Amerada Hess Corporation, Wm. T. Burton Industries, Inc., Brock Exploration Corporation, Mongrue Oil Company, Inc., Northwest Oil Company, Lynal, Incorporated, Quintana Petroleum Corporation, Quintana Petroleum (u.S.), Inc.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: January 22, 2024
• Docket: 2023-CA-0212
• Status: Published

Opinion

HEIRS OF LYDIA * NO. 2023-CA-0212 BERGERON, WIFE OF/AND SIDNEY J. SIMONEAUX LAND * COURT OF APPEAL PARTNERSHIP, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP * FOURTH CIRCUIT

VERSUS * STATE OF LOUISIANA

B-P AMOCO, AMERADA HESS * * * * * * * CORPORATION, WM. T. BURTON INDUSTRIES, INC., BROCK EXPLORATION CORPORATION, MONGRUE OIL COMPANY, INC., NORTHWEST OIL COMPANY, LYNAL, INCORPORATED, QUINTANA PETROLEUM CORPORATION, QUINTANA PETROLEUM (U.S.), INC., ET AL.

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

HEIRS OF LYDIA BERGERON ET AL. NO. 2023-C-0016

VERSUS

BP AMOCO ET AL.

APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 1999-19530, DIVISION “B” Honorable Richard G. Perque, Judge ****** JUDGE SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins)

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

Michael G. Stag Ashley M. Liuzza Matthew D. Rogenes STAG LIUZZA LLC 365 Canal Street Suite 2850 New Orleans, LA 70130

Andrew A. Lemmon LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC 15068 River Road Hahnville, LA 70057

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Robert B. McNeal Kathryn Z. Gonski Mark R. Deethardt Jaclyn E. Hickman Trinity A. Morale LISKOW & LEWIS 701 Poydras Street, Suite 5000 New Orleans, LA 70139

Hunter A. Chauvin LISKOW & LEWIS 120 Camellia Blvd., Suite 300 Lafayette, LA 70508

Lauren C. Mastio Carl D. Rosenblum Taylor K. Wimberly JONES WALKER LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue Suite 5100 New Orleans, LA 70170-5100

Shawn A. Carter Christopher B. Bailey Matthew J. Randazzo, III RANDAZZO GIGLIO & BAILEY LLC 900 E. Saint Mary Blvd. Suite 200 Lafayette, LA 70503-2378

Michael R. Phillips Annie Lemelin Claire E. Juneau KEAN MILLER, LLP 900 Poydras Street, Suite 3600 New Orleans, LA 70112

Charles Simon McCowan, III L. Victor Gregoire, Jr. KEAN MILLER, LLP 400 Convention Street, Suite 700 Baton Rouge, LA 70802

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES; RELIEF DENIED; ORIGINAL OPINION AFFIRMED JANUARY 22, 2024 SCJ TFL RML We grant appellees, BP America Production Company, Chevron U.S.A.,

Inc., and Wagner Oil Company’s application for rehearing for the purpose of

addressing their argument that this Court failed to discuss that a claim for property

damage is a personal right that must be assigned to pass to a subsequent acquirer of

property by particular title, and that this Court relied on an erroneous distinction

between the remedies available for sales and exchanges.

Appellees’ application for rehearing seeks reconsideration of this Court’s

December 20, 2023 opinion. Appellees argue that the Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v.

Amerada Hess Corp., 2010-2267 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246, “decision was not

simply the remedies available to an acquirer of allegedly contaminated property,

but rather the longstanding distinction between real and personal rights that has

existed under Louisiana property and obligations law for more than 160 years.”

The appellees further argue that this Court made an inaccurate statement in the

original opinion by providing that “unlike the plaintiff in Eagle Pipe, the law has

1 not provided to the heirs a cause of action in redhibition and the right to sue for

recession of the sale or reduction of the purchase price in this instance.” Bergeron

v. B-P Amoco, 2023-0212, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/20/23), ___So.3d___, 2023

WL 8798524. The appellees contend that Louisiana Civil Code and Louisiana

jurisprudence recognize that the same rights and obligations that apply to a seller

and buyer in a sale also applies to parties in a contract of exchange.

However, the appellees fail to consider the applicable facts in this matter.

The transfer of property was not the typical transactional exchange with a third

party. The heirs inherited the property in equal shares and subsequently transferred

their interest in the partnership they owned. There is no legal remedy of recession

or termination of exchange that would rectify the alleged damages. Notably, “a

redhibition claim is between sellers and purchasers. A redhibition action cannot be

maintained absent such relationship.” Connell v. Davis, 2006-9, p. 18 (La. App. 5

Cir. 10/17/06), 940 So.2d 195, 205 (citing Sanders v. Earnest, 34,656 (La. App. 2

Cir. 7/24/01), 793 So.2d 393).

The subsequent purchaser doctrine does not apply in this action, as the law

does not provide to the heirs a cause of action in redhibition and the right to sue for

rescission of the sale or the reduction of the purchase price as there was no sale of

the property. Accordingly, the appellees fail to produce any legal basis to warrant

an amendment to this Court’s original opinion.

For these reasons, we grant the application for rehearing, deny relief, and

affirm our original opinion.

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES; RELIEF DENIED; ORIGINAL OPINION AFFIRMED