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 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 Poydras Street, Suite 5000 New Orleans, LA 70139 Hunter A. Chauvin LISKOW & LEWIS Camellia Blvd., Suite 300 Lafayette, LA 70508 Lauren C. Mastio Carl D. Rosenblum Taylor K. Wimberly JONES WALKER LLP St. Charles Avenue Suite 5100 New Orleans, LA 70170-5100 Shawn A. Carter Christopher B. Bailey Matthew J. Randazzo, III RANDAZZO GIGLIO & BAILEY LLC E. Saint Mary Blvd. Suite 200 Lafayette, LA 70503-2378 Michael R. Phillips Annie Lemelin Claire E. Juneau KEAN MILLER, LLP Poydras Street, Suite 3600 New Orleans, LA 70112 Charles Simon McCowan, III L. Victor Gregoire, Jr. KEAN MILLER, LLP 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 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