Louisiana House Bill HB394

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/25/11
• Refer: 4/25/11

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the state in the matter of "Fredia Cross v. Universal Casualty Insurance Company, et al"

Impact

The passage of HB 394 impacts state financial management by officially recognizing and providing the funds necessary to fulfill the financial obligations arising from a judicial ruling. The bill ensures that the state is held accountable for its financial commitments related to legal judgments. By funding this payment, it aligns state spending with the legal obligations set forth by the court's decision, reinforcing the importance of adhering to judicial processes and decisions.

Summary

House Bill 394 authorizes the appropriation of funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2011-2012 to settle a consent judgment in the case of 'Fredia Cross v. Universal Casualty Insurance Company, et al.' This bill addresses the financial responsibility of the state in relation to a legal matter that has been resolved through judicial consent, specifically pertaining to the Department of Transportation and Development and other involved parties. The total amount appropriated is $452.02, which is intended for payment of the judgment incurred by the state in the lawsuit.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 394 appears to be neutral as it deals with administrative financial responsibilities rather than contentious policy issues. The bill is a procedural measure that, while it may not generate significant public debate or controversy, demonstrates the state's responsibility to manage legal judgments diligently. Legislators likely viewed this bill as a routine but necessary action to uphold the financial integrity of state operations in compliance with court rulings.

Contention

There is minimal contention associated with HB 394 as it simply serves to appropriate funds for a consent judgment, which typically indicates agreement by all parties to settle without further dispute. The bill does not propose any significant changes to state laws or regulations beyond ensuring that the state meets its obligations. It primarily reflects the judicial outcome of a specific case, suggesting that the real contention in associated discussions would likely come from the context of the original lawsuit rather than the appropriations bill itself.