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"
Impact
The passage of HB 200 would ensure that the state meets its financial obligations stemming from a legal judgment. The act reflects the importance of state accountability in matters of compensatory damages that arise from claims against government entities. By appropriating these funds, the state aims to uphold its legal commitments and maintain the trust of its citizens, especially in contexts where individuals have suffered harm due to governmental actions.
Summary
House Bill 200 is a legislative proposal from Representative Stuart Bishop aimed at appropriating funds for the payment of a consent judgment against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The bill specifies an allocation of $491,314 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2012-2013 to cover the costs related to the lawsuit 'Sheryl A. Broussard and Ronald P. Broussard v. Chatra Carter, Allstate Insurance Company and Lafayette Consolidated Government'. This financial commitment includes designated funds for future medical expenses awarded to the plaintiffs.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 200 appears to be generally supportive, as appropriating funds for legal judgments is often viewed as a necessary and responsible action by the government. There likely exists a consensus on the importance of resolving legal disputes effectively, although specific sentiments regarding the lawsuit's details and implications for the DOTD may vary among stakeholders. The connection to public finances also means discussions may include caution about sustainable budgeting practices.
Contention
There was potentially some contention regarding the source and impact of the appropriated funds, particularly concerns about budget allocations and prioritization of state finances. While most discussions may not highlight significant opposition, the complexities of state budgeting and possible impacts on other appropriations could elicit debate about financial priorities, ensuring that public funds are used efficiently and effectively.
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"
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"