Louisiana House Bill HB16

Louisiana 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/13/15
• Refer: 2/13/15
• Refer: 4/13/15

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Christina C. Spurlock and Ray Spurlock v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Inc., et al"

Impact

The passage of HB 16 facilitates the payment of the legal judgment against the state, which can affect public confidence in the state's ability to manage its financial and legal affairs. By appropriating the specified funds, the bill helps to mitigate any potential legal ramifications for the state that could arise from failing to comply with the court's order. This bill underscores the state's responsibility in handling claims and judgments while simultaneously promoting a sense of accountability in state operations.

Summary

House Bill 16 appropriates $65,416 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2015-2016 to cover a consent judgment against the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) related to the case 'Christina C. Spurlock and Ray Spurlock v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Inc., et al'. This bill is essential for the state to meet its financial obligations resulting from a legal action involving DOTD, ensuring that the judgment is settled in a timely manner.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding the bill is generally practical, as it addresses a specific obligation that the state must fulfill. There is little opposition anticipated since the bill focuses on rectifying a judicial outcome rather than introducing controversial policies. The consensus appears to be that taking care of such judgments is a necessary administrative function, maintaining smooth operations within the state's transportation department.

Contention

Notable points of contention might arise on the broader implications of the funds being appropriated, as well as how often similar appropriations may be required in the future. While HB 16 itself is not likely to provoke significant debate, it does reflect on the state’s legal encounters and how they necessitate financial commitments from the general fund. Observers may debate whether this indicates a trend in legal challenges faced by state departments and the potential costs associated with them.