Louisiana House Bill HB24

Louisiana 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/15
• Refer: 2/20/15
• Refer: 4/13/15

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Zurich American Insurance Company v. Jonathan C. Dark, New Bern Transport Corporation, Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc. and the State of Louisiana through the DOTD"

Impact

The impact of HB 24 is primarily financial, as it allocates specific state funds to cover a court-mandated judgment. This underscores the importance of legislative appropriations in managing financial liabilities that arise from court decisions. By ensuring that the state fulfills its financial obligations, the bill contributes to maintaining the integrity of state operations and its ability to meet legal responsibilities.

Summary

House Bill 24 is focused on the appropriation of funds for the payment of a consent judgment stemming from the legal case 'Zurich American Insurance Company v. Jonathan C. Dark, New Bern Transport Corporation, Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc. and the State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development'. The bill designates a sum of $6,062.50 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2015-2016 to satisfy the judgment against the state, demonstrating legislative action to address outstanding legal financial obligations.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding this bill is generally practical, as it focuses on the necessary action required to resolve a judicial ruling. There appears to be a consensus that appropriating these funds is essential for the state's governance duties. Given the nature of the bill, discussions around it may not have sparked significant public or political contention, as it pertains to fulfilling a legal requirement rather than introducing new policy.

Contention

While HB 24 does not seem to generate notable points of contention, it does highlight the ongoing need for state funding frameworks capable of addressing legal judgments. The bill progresses as part of regular budgetary considerations, and any possible debate would likely center around the broader implications of budget allocations for settlements rather than specific opposition to the bill itself.