Louisiana House Bill HB927

Louisiana 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/28/16
• Refer: 3/29/16

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Dennis Evans and Elizabeth Evans individually and as husband and wife v. Nathan Rowe, Express Energy Services, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA d/b/a Chartis Casualty Company, Progressive Insurance and the State of Louisiana and its Department of Transportation & Development"

Impact

The passing of HB 927 directly impacts state laws by providing a mechanism for addressing financial liabilities resulting from legal judgments against state entities. By appropriating funds in this manner, the bill underscores the state's commitment to fulfill its judicially mandated financial responsibilities, thereby reinforcing legal accountability. However, there is no significant alteration of existing laws or introduction of new statutes; it is more of a procedural measure to ensure that the judgment is paid.

Summary

House Bill 927 is a piece of legislation that primarily aims to appropriate funds from the General Fund of the state of Louisiana for the Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Specifically, it allocates a total of $15,000 to pay a consent judgment in the matter of Dennis Evans and Elizabeth Evans against several defendants including Nathan Rowe, Express Energy Services, and the State of Louisiana. The bill is straightforward in its objectives, focusing solely on the financial obligation stemming from a legal dispute rather than introducing new legal concepts or frameworks.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 927 is largely neutral, as it pertains to the payment of a judgment rather than a highly controversial legislative topic. Supporters would likely argue that fulfilling legal judgments demonstrates good governance and accountability on the part of the state. Conversely, opponents might raise concerns regarding the allocation of state funds, particularly in times of budgetary constraints, questioning whether the appropriation is justifiable given the source of the funds.

Contention

One significant point of contention involves the source of the appropriated funds. There may be debates regarding whether this financial allocation is the best use of state resources, especially considering the ongoing budget discussions in Louisiana. With funding often being limited, the decision to settle a judgment in this manner could lead to scrutiny about prioritizing legal settlements over other pressing state needs, such as education or infrastructure development.