March 17, 2015
NELLIE PIERCE, ET AL.
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, ET AL
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF VERMILION.
For Applicant: Warren A. Perrin: PERRIN, LANDRY, DELAUNAY, DARTEZ & OUELLET; Stuart Housel Smith, Michael Gregory Stag, Sean Seton Cassidy, Ashley Melerine Liuzza, SMITH STAG, LLC.
For Respondent: Michael Edward Parker, ALLEN & GOOCH; Francis S. Craig, III, BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, LLP; James Aristide Holmes, John Kearney Nieset, Patrick Ryan Plummer, CHRISTOVICH & KEARNEY; Carl David Rosenblum, Alida Camors Hainkel, JONES WALKER, LLP; Michael R. Phillips, Brittany Buckley Salup, Shannon Alicia Shelton, KEAN MILLER, LLP; Ralph Shelton Hubbard, III, Celeste D. Elliott, Anne Elizabeth Briard, LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD; William Hunter Lemoine Kaufman, Valerie Guidry, OTTINGER HEBERT, LLC; George Bartlett Hall, Jr., Katie A. Whitman Myers, PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP; David Phillip Curtis, SHELL OIL COMPANY.
WEIMER, J., concurring. GUIDRY, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Because Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246, addressed subsequent purchaser rights following a sale, which are distinguishable from the rights acquired through a succession transfer, we find Eagle Pipe is not dispositive of the exceptions of no right of action filed by the defendants in this case. Accordingly, the lower court judgments are reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
WEIMER, J., concurring.
I concur in the result. See Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246 (Weimer, J., dissenting at pp. 284-88, 291-93).
GUIDRY, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
I concur in the result of our per curiam decision today. I write separately to point out that our reversal of the lower courts' rulings, because they relied on the subsequent purchaser doctrine as applied in Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246, does not address the merits of any other basis for the defendants' exceptions or defenses, including extinguishment of the plaintiffs' claims by confusion and prescription or peremption.