Louisiana House Bill HB327

Louisiana 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/2/16
• Refer: 3/2/16
• Refer: 3/14/16

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Zurich American Insurance Company v. Adrian D. Gourley, McLane Company, Inc., Transco, Inc., Aon Rish Services Southwest, Inc., Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc. and the State of Louisiana through the DOTD"

Impact

The primary impact of HB 327 is its allocation of state resources to cover a judicial judgment, which underscores the state's financial responsibilities related to legal outcomes involving state agencies. Funding such judgments is a routine function of the legislature, but the necessity of ensuring sufficient appropriations reflects on the management of the state's fiscal health. As the statute emphasizes payment from the general fund, it brings attention to the balancing act state legislators must perform between competing financial obligations.

Summary

House Bill 327, introduced by Representative Nancy Landry, aims to appropriate a specific amount of state funds for the payment of a consent judgment resulting from a legal suit. This bill allocates a total of $6,062.50 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2016-2017 to satisfy the obligations stemming from the case titled 'Zurich American Insurance Company v. Adrian D. Gourley, McLane Company, Inc., Transco, Inc., Aon Rish Services Southwest, Inc., Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc. and the State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development'. The legality of such appropriations typically hinges on the nature of the judgment and the implications for state finances.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 327 appears to be neutral, as most discussions regarding appropriations bills are often procedural rather than emotional. Supporters recognize the necessity of fulfilling judicial decisions to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. Critics, if present, might express concerns regarding the sufficiency of state funds or the reasons for the judgment itself, although detailed opposition seems minimal based on available transcripts.

Contention

While the bill is not likely to evoke extensive debate, it might raise questions regarding state budgeting priorities and fiscal responsibility. Legislators may discuss the broader implications of constantly appropriating funds to settle legal matters and whether such settlements could prompt reforms in how state agencies manage contracts and legal risks. Given the relatively small amount involved in this specific instance, significant points of contention are unlikely to emerge.