Louisiana House Bill HB1033

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/12
• Refer: 4/2/12

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in favor of Tim Green in the matter of "Bridget Bourgeois, et al v. DOTD, et al" c/w "Tim Green, et al v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, et al" c/w "Johnathan Louis and Manya Louis v. DOTD"

Impact

This bill has implications for state financial responsibilities and how judgments against state entities are managed. By appropriating funds for this legal obligation, the bill highlights the state's recognition of its liabilities arising from lawsuits and the necessity of compensating affected parties. It also indicates the state's mechanism for handling legal judgments through appropriations, thereby maintaining fiscal accountability in meeting such obligations.

Summary

House Bill 1033 focuses on the appropriation of state funds for the payment of a judgment in favor of Tim Green in a consolidated legal matter that involves multiple parties and lawsuits. The bill specifically allocates a sum of $5,000 from the General Fund of the state of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2012-2013 to satisfy this consent judgment. The case revolves around the incidents involving Bridget Bourgeois and her deceased son, Cody J. Cormany, against the State of Louisiana's Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) and various insurance companies, including State Farm and GEICO.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1033 appears to support the necessity of fulfilling legal responsibilities, albeit for a relatively small amount of funds. There is a general understanding in legislative discussions that ensuring the proper allocation of funds to pay judgments is essential for maintaining public confidence in the state's legal and financial systems. However, details regarding debates or dissenting opinions related to this specific appropriation are not prominently noted, possibly indicating general agreement on the necessity of the bill.

Contention

While the bill itself may not appear to be highly contentious given its straightforward nature of funding a legal obligation, it reflects broader themes of accountability in state governance. The bill's passage showcases the state's commitment to addressing its liabilities, but it also raises questions about the implications of such appropriations on other budgetary priorities. Moreover, any prior debate concerning the circumstances that led to the judgment and how such issues are resolved in the future could be points of discussion among legislators.