Louisiana House Bill HB124

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Joseph Simmons, et al"

Impact

The passage of HB 124 will have a direct financial impact on the state's budget by earmarking a substantial portion of the General Fund for these legal obligations. The allocation signifies the state's commitment to meeting its liabilities while also drawing attention to the financial implications that arise from legal judgments against government entities. By providing these funds, the state aims to resolve ongoing legal matters efficiently and maintain its legal integrity.

Summary

House Bill 124 is focused on the appropriation of funds from the state's General Fund for the fiscal year 2013-2014. Specifically, it allocates a total of $100,000 to cover a consent judgment against the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) in the case of 'Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Joseph Simmons, et al.' This appropriation reflects the legal obligations of the state to fulfill court-awarded judgments, ensuring that claimants receive the funds awarded to them through judicial processes.

Sentiment

The sentiment around the bill appears to be neutral, as it is primarily a procedural measure to fulfill a legal requirement rather than a piece of legislation designed to enact new policy or governance changes. Since the bill's content relates to appropriating existing funds, discussions surrounding it may be less contentious compared to bills that address policy changes or significant regulatory adjustments.

Contention

While HB 124 serves to address a specific legal judgment, it does raise questions about the accountability of state agencies like DOTD in managing risks and liabilities that lead to such judgments. Comments from legislative discussions may concern the need for improved oversight and preventative measures to avoid future consent judgments that could lead to further fiscal strains on the state's budget. However, as it stands, the bill is largely an administrative necessity.