Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Allstate Insurance Company and Ronald P. Broussard v. Chatra Carter, Allstate Insurance Company and Lafayette Consolidated Government"
Impact
The impact of HB 1021 on state law pertains to its function as a mechanism for the state to meet legal obligations stemming from court rulings. By ensuring that judgment payments are appropriated through this bill, the legislature upholds the rule of law and reinforces the accountability of state departments when they are involved in lawsuits. Moreover, addressing such payments timely is crucial for maintaining the financial integrity and operational functionality of the DOTD.
Summary
House Bill 1021 is a legislative proposal that focuses on the appropriation of funds specifically for the payment of a judgment against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The bill appropriates a total of $3,348.12 from the state general fund to satisfy the consent judgment that originated from the case titled "Allstate Insurance Company and Ronald P. Broussard v. Chatra Carter, Allstate Insurance Company and Lafayette Consolidated Government". This amount reflects the costs determined by the court that the DOTD is obligated to pay within the fiscal year 2012-2013.
Sentiment
The sentiment around HB 1021 may be interpreted as pragmatic, as the bill addresses a necessary action following a court ruling. Generally, appropriation bills receive less contention than more policy-driven legislation because their objective is to fulfill financial responsibilities rather than introduce new regulations or changes to existing laws. Legislators tend to support such bills in a bipartisan manner, given their focus on compliance with legal judgments and maintaining state accountability.
Contention
While there are unlikely to be significant points of contention within the parameters of HB 1021, it is important to recognize that discussions may arise concerning the use of state funds and how such appropriations are prioritized within the wider state budget. Debates may emerge regarding the transparency of the process by which such judgments are reached and how funds are allocated, but overall, the bill primarily serves a clear intent without introducing controversial measures.
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Sheryl A. Broussard and Ronald P. Broussard v. Chatra Carter, Allstate Insurance Company and Lafayette Consolidated Government"
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the DOTD in the matter of "Allstate Insurance Company and Christopher Matthews v. Erica Crochet, et al"
Appropriate funds for payment of judgment against the state in the matter of Allstate Insurance Company as partial subrogee to the rights of/and Vernita Hutton v. DOTD"
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Jeffrey Fluman v. Ryan Day, Allstate Insurance Company, State of Louisiana, DOTD"
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Jeffrey Fluman v. Ryan Day, Allstate Insurance Company, State of Louisiana, DOTD"
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the suit entitled "Jason Sampson v. William S. Jonson, et al." consolidated with "Latharie Sylvain v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al."
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Bridget Bourgeois, et al v. State of La. DOTD, et al" consolidated with "Tim Green v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, et al" consolidated with "Johnathan Louis and Manya Louis v. State of La. DOTD"