Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the DOTD in the matter of "Jermaine Murphy v. Progressive Security Insurance Company, et al"
Impact
The passage of HB 1055 is significant as it underscores the obligation of the state to honor judgments rendered by the court regarding disputes involving state agencies. By appropriating these funds, the bill ensures that the state meets its financial obligation, thus upholding the legal and fiscal integrity of state operations. The funding would directly impact the state's budget allocation for the specified fiscal year, potentially affecting the resources available for other programs or expenditures.
Summary
House Bill 1055 aims to appropriate funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2012-2013, specifically designating $93,000 to fulfill a consent judgment stemming from the case 'Jermaine Murphy v. Progressive Security Insurance Company, et al'. This legislative action reflects the state's responsibility to pay for court-determined liabilities associated with its agencies or representatives, in this case, the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD).
Sentiment
Sentiment around HB 1055 is generally practical and focused on fiscal responsibility since it directly addresses a court ruling. While there may not be substantial opposition to the bill due to its nature as a financial obligation, the necessity of such appropriations can highlight broader issues regarding the management of state resources and the repercussions of legal actions involving state entities. It is a legislative requirement rather than a controversial initiative.
Contention
There is a notable lack of contention associated with HB 1055, given its straightforward purpose of authorizing payment for an existing legal obligation. However, it does bring to light discussions regarding how the state manages its financial liabilities and the implications of state-funded legal judgments. Additionally, it serves as a reminder of the potential impact of civil suits on state budgets and operations, raising issues about preventive measures in the future.
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 in the matter of "Barbara Ann Thibodeaux Rando, et ux v. Troy D. Furr and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Progressive Security Insurance Company, and State of La. through DOTD"
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Progressive Security Insurance Company as Subrogee of Quint Marceaux v. State of Louisiana, through the DOTD, the Parish of Iberia and the City of New Iberia"
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Brittany J. Robertson, et al v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Insurance Company, et al"