Louisiana House Bill HB54

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Elaine Maxwell, et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al"

Impact

The passage of HB 54 will affect state financial management by authorizing the allocation of a portion of the General Fund to cover legal liabilities incurred by the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). This move serves to discharge the state's legal obligations and ensures that victims receive due compensation for damages sustained. By fulfilling this obligation, the bill highlights the state's commitment to uphold legal agreements and provide justice to individuals involved in such disputes.

Summary

House Bill 54, introduced by Representative Willmott, seeks to appropriate funds from the state's General Fund for the fiscal year 2011-2012 to satisfy a consent judgment in the case 'Elaine Maxwell, et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al'. This bill allocates a total of $400,000 for the settlement related to the injuries and claims arising from the incident involving DOTD and various insurance companies. The provisions of the bill indicate that it is explicitly tied to a resolution of a legal dispute, which underscores the ongoing intersection between state budgeting and litigation outcomes.

Sentiment

Overall sentiment surrounding HB 54 appears to be relatively neutral, primarily focusing on the need to address an existing legal judgment rather than eliciting strong public or political divides. As it pertains to fiscal responsibility and adhering to legal judgments, the bill is likely deemed necessary by legislators. However, there may be underlying concerns regarding the implications of such appropriations on future state budgets and potential liabilities in similar cases.

Contention

While no significant points of contention have been raised during discussions of HB 54, the appropriation of funds for legal judgments can often spark debates around state fiscal priorities. Critics may voice concerns that resources allocated to settle such legal matters detract from funding that could be utilized for infrastructure, education, or other critical areas in state governance. Thus, although the bill serves a specific purpose, it may open discussions regarding broader financial strategies of the state.