Provides relative to integrated coastal protection and recovery for certain losses arising from business interruption. (8/15/10) (EG INCREASE EX See Note)
Under the provisions of SB 382, business owners seeking compensation for losses will have limitations set by the bill, including a threshold of $50,000, meaning that they will not be able to recover damages for losses below this amount. Additionally, any compensation obtained will be offset by any insurance proceeds received for business interruption, thereby ensuring that businesses do not receive double compensation. This legal provision potentially changes the existing landscape for businesses that may previously have relied solely on insurance coverage without a clear legal right to pursue state compensation.
Senate Bill 382, proposed by Senator Morrell, seeks to establish a legal framework for businesses that experience losses due to integrated coastal protection measures. Specifically, the bill creates a right of action for businesses to seek damages or compensation from the state or any political subdivision when their operations are interrupted as a consequence of these protective measures, which are intended to mitigate the impacts of hurricanes and floods. The legislation aims to ensure that businesses have a means of recourse for losses suffered during times of significant natural disasters, as coastal protection initiatives become increasingly vital in safeguarding communities.
The sentiment surrounding SB 382 appears to be generally pragmatic, reflecting a recognition of the challenges that businesses face in the aftermath of natural disasters. Many stakeholders advocate for the bill as a necessary means of ensuring that businesses are supported during critical recovery periods. However, there may be concerns regarding the limitations placed on claims and the potential complexities involved in demonstrating the link between business interruption and state-initiated coastal protection measures.
Debate may arise regarding the fairness of the $50,000 threshold and the offset for insurance proceeds, as critics could argue that such provisions could leave businesses vulnerable when recovering from significant losses. Additionally, there are concerns that the state might be held liable in situations where the effects of coastal protection are not clearly linked to business interruptions or where businesses feel that the damages do not accurately reflect their losses. The discussions surrounding the bill, therefore, highlight the balance between encouraging effective coastal protection and ensuring that business interests are adequately safeguarded.