The Louisiana Third Circuit recently made clear that landowners in "Legacy" lawsuits cannot win liability findings just by pointing to the presence of regulated substances on their property. They must show those substances interfere with their use of the land. Legacy lawsuits claim that historical exploration and production activity caused contamination to soil and groundwater. The Legislature recently passed legislation significantly limiting landowners' ability to pursue lucrative damage awards, effective for suits filed beginning September 2027. However, the Third Circuit opinion makes it clear that landowners cannot, even under existing law, establish liability by simply demonstrating that some regulatory exceedance exists on the property. The decision significantly curtails recent attempts by landowners to argue that low levels of regulated substances establish liability, particularly where those levels would not normally require remediation or support attorney fee awards that often reach millions of dollars.

In WMH Farms, LLC v. Apache Corp. (of Del.) (Jan. 26, 2026), the Third Circuit rejected the plaintiff's argument that exceedances of regulatory standards constitute "contamination" entitling a landowner to summary judgment that a defendant is "responsible for environmental damage." This is the key liability finding under Act 312 (La. R.S. 30:29), the statute that governs all lawsuits brought by landowners alleging environmental damage from exploration and production activities. A finding of liability results in a defendant being referred to the Louisiana Dept. of Conservation & Energy (C&E) to develop and implement a "feasible plan" to restore the property (and the attorney fee award). The Court relied on the statutory definitions of "contamination" and "environmental damage" to hold that the presence of potentially harmful substances must render soil or groundwater "unsuitable for their intended use" to trigger a finding of liability for a feasible plan.

The Court separately upheld a defendant's appeal of the district court's dismissal of its third-party demand against the company from which it purchased its interest in the property. The third-party defendant successfully argued that contractual language making the sale "as is" and requiring the buyer to restore the surface effectively transferred liability to the purchaser. The Court further rejected a third-party claim for contribution, reasoning that both parties were solidary obligors and that the third-party defendant's prior settlement with the landowner plaintiff extinguished any right to contribution from other defendants.

On a more practical note, the WMH Farms opinion also made a key evidentiary ruling that a personal affidavit attaching environmental sampling data and attesting it was submitted to C&E was not competent summary judgment evidence. This is a common workaround when certified copies of public records have not been obtained, and a reminder of the importance of adhering to the strict limitations on evidence that can support motions for summary judgment.