Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the DOTD in the matter of "Michael Aleshire and Mary Aleshire v. CUSA, GCT, LLC, d/b/a Gulf Coast Transportation, Vencent R. Barnett, and National Union Fire Insurance"
Impact
The passage of HB 5 highlights the state's legal responsibilities and the financial frameworks in place for resolving claims against governmental entities. In appropriating funds for this consent judgment, the bill impacts how the state manages its financial obligations stemming from lawsuits. This could influence future cases against state departments and set precedents for how such judgments are handled at a legislative level while also ensuring accountability within state operations.
Summary
House Bill 5 seeks to appropriate funds specifically meant for the payment of a consent judgment against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) related to the case of 'Michael Aleshire and Mary Aleshire v. CUSA, GCT, LLC, d/b/a Gulf Coast Transportation, Vencent R. Barnett, and National Union Fire Insurance'. The total sum allocated for this payment is $104,380.82, sourced from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2016-2017. This appropriation underscores the state's obligation to settle legal judgments that arise from its operational activities, particularly involving public transportation infrastructure and related liabilities.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 5 appears to be neutral, reflecting a necessary procedure in government financial management rather than inciting significant public or political contention. Consensus among legislators may lean towards adherence to legal processes and ensuring the state honors its settlements, indicating a responsible approach to governance. However, discussions around budget allocations and fiscal prudence could arise as secondary concerns, prompting debates among stakeholders about fiscal priorities.
Contention
While there were no major points of contention presented in the available discussions about HB 5, underlying issues related to state budgeting and appropriations could create room for debate. Legislators might scrutinize how such appropriations fit into broader budget considerations, particularly regarding funding for other pressing state needs. The bill's influence on public perception of governmental accountability and transparency regarding financial responsibilities may also be an area for discussion.
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the DOTD in the matter of "Michael Aleshire and Mary Aleshire v. CUSA, GCT, LLC, d/b/a Gulf Coast Transportation, Vencent R. Barnett, and National Union Fire Insurance"
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Jeffrey Fluman v. Ryan Day, Allstate Insurance Company, State of Louisiana, DOTD"
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Darren L. Hunt and Rachel G. Hunt, individually and on behalf of their minor children, Wyatt Hunt and Drew E. Hunt v. Mears Sand & Gravel, LLC, Bituminous Casualty Corp., Michael J. Domingue, First National Ins. Co. of America, and Double D Transport, LLC"
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Jeffrey Fluman v. Ryan Day, Allstate Insurance Company, State of Louisiana, DOTD"