Louisiana House Bill HB1055

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/2/12
• Refer: 4/3/12

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the DOTD in the matter of "Jermaine Murphy v. Progressive Security Insurance Company, et al"

Impact

The passage of HB 1055 is significant as it underscores the obligation of the state to honor judgments rendered by the court regarding disputes involving state agencies. By appropriating these funds, the bill ensures that the state meets its financial obligation, thus upholding the legal and fiscal integrity of state operations. The funding would directly impact the state's budget allocation for the specified fiscal year, potentially affecting the resources available for other programs or expenditures.

Summary

House Bill 1055 aims to appropriate funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2012-2013, specifically designating $93,000 to fulfill a consent judgment stemming from the case 'Jermaine Murphy v. Progressive Security Insurance Company, et al'. This legislative action reflects the state's responsibility to pay for court-determined liabilities associated with its agencies or representatives, in this case, the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD).

Sentiment

Sentiment around HB 1055 is generally practical and focused on fiscal responsibility since it directly addresses a court ruling. While there may not be substantial opposition to the bill due to its nature as a financial obligation, the necessity of such appropriations can highlight broader issues regarding the management of state resources and the repercussions of legal actions involving state entities. It is a legislative requirement rather than a controversial initiative.

Contention

There is a notable lack of contention associated with HB 1055, given its straightforward purpose of authorizing payment for an existing legal obligation. However, it does bring to light discussions regarding how the state manages its financial liabilities and the implications of state-funded legal judgments. Additionally, it serves as a reminder of the potential impact of civil suits on state budgets and operations, raising issues about preventive measures in the future.