Louisiana House Bill HB110

Louisiana 2021 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/21
• Refer: 3/12/21
• Refer: 4/12/21

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of consent judgment against the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development in the suit entitled "Allen Joseph Johnson, Jr., individually and as tutor for Lydia G. Johnson vs. State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, David M. Courville, D/B/A Vidrine Community Grocery, and John B. LaHaye, Jr. consolidated with Chelsie Brean Fontenot vs. State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, David M. Courville D/B/A Vidrine Community Grocery and John B. LaHaye, Jr. consolidated with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company A/S/O Stephen B. Tate vs. Chelsie B. Fontenot"

Impact

The enactment of HB110 is expected to ensure compliance with the court's ruling and will provide the necessary financial resources required to meet the judgment's terms. This payment is crucial in upholding the state's legal obligations arising from litigation, reinforcing the importance of adhering to judicial decisions to maintain public trust in government institutions. By providing these funds, the legislature affirms its commitment to resolving legal matters efficiently and responsibly.

Summary

House Bill 110 appropriates a total of $15,000 from the State General Fund for the fiscal year 2020-2021 to satisfy a consent judgment involving the State of Louisiana. The case in question primarily relates to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and addresses combined suits stemming from incidents involving multiple parties, including State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The bill specifies that funds will be used to cover principal, interest, court costs, and expert witness fees as mandated by the judgment.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB110 appears to be generally neutral as it addresses a specific legal obligation rather than broader policy implications. Lawmakers recognize the necessity of funding such judgments to prevent further legal complications or potential costs resulting from delays in payment. There may be some discussion about the appropriateness of the amount and the implications of state resources being used in this manner, but overall, the focus remains on fulfilling the state's responsibilities.

Contention

While there does not seem to be significant contention surrounding the bill itself, the underlying litigation that HB110 addresses may raise points of discussion regarding the legal processes that led to this judgment and the appropriate use of state funds. Some lawmakers may question the circumstances that necessitated this payment, particularly regarding how similar cases will be handled in the future. Additionally, stakeholders may scrutinize the adequacy of state oversight in preventing such legal situations, suggesting a need for enhanced regulatory measures.