Louisiana House Bill HB112

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 "Micka and Tabatha LeBlanc, individually and on behalf of their minor children, Bryant LeBlanc and Brianne LeBlanc vs. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development & GoAuto Insurance Company"

Impact

The bill establishes clear guidelines for how the judgment will be paid, stating that payments can only be made for final judgments and detailing what expenses will be covered. It also addresses potential conflicts between existing laws and the provisions of the judgment, asserting that the terms of the judgment will take precedence in the event of any discrepancies. Additionally, it specifies that interest on the judgment will cease to accrue from the effective date of the act, indicating a financial limitation for the state post-enactment.

Summary

House Bill 112 aims to appropriate $125,000 from the State General Fund for the fiscal year 2020-2021 to satisfy a consent judgment against the State of Louisiana. The judgment arises from a lawsuit involving Micka LeBlanc and Tabatha LeBlanc, on behalf of their minor children, against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and GoAuto Insurance Company. This legislation is specifically focused on ensuring that the judgment is paid as stipulated, highlighting the state's obligation to fulfill a court's order.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB 112 appears to be neutral, primarily focusing on the fulfillment of a legal obligation rather than igniting significant debate. There may be support for ensuring that individuals receive court-ordered compensations, particularly among advocates for legal compliance and justice. However, the specifics of the bill suggest it was not a highly contentious topic among lawmakers.

Contention

Since the bill is primarily procedural in nature and focused on fulfilling a judgment, notable points of contention seem minimal. There may be underlying concerns about the implications of state appropriations for legal judgments in the future, as similar cases may require further legislative actions or appropriations if they arise. The economic implications of this allocation of funds from the general fund could also be scrutinized, but such discussions are not heavily documented in relation to this specific bill.