Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Rogers et al. v. Dantin et al.
HB 227 is an appropriations bill that directs $400,000 from the State General Fund (Direct) for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 to pay a consent judgment entered against the State of Louisiana in a lawsuit arising out of the case styled Ronnie Rogers and Andrea Rogers, individually and on behalf of their minor child, Hayley Rogers, versus Richard A. Dantin, Geico Casualty Company, the State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development, and the Parish of Jefferson. The bill specifically identifies the judgment, the court, the docket number, and the parties, and it limits payment to the amount and terms of the final judgment.
The measure also sets out how the judgment is to be paid: principal, interest, court costs, and expert witness fees are covered only as awarded in the judgment, and payment is conditioned on presentation of required documentation to the state treasurer. It further provides that, for purposes of the act, the judgment is deemed paid on the effective date of the law, which stops additional interest from accruing after that date. The act becomes effective upon gubernatorial signature or other constitutionally authorized enactment.
HB 227 affects state fiscal law by authorizing a specific direct general fund appropriation to satisfy a court-ordered settlement obligation of the state, through the Department of Transportation and Development, in a particular civil case. It does not create a new program or change substantive law generally; instead, it provides a one-time payment mechanism for a named judgment and establishes rules governing payment, conflict resolution between the act and the judgment, and cessation of post-effective-date interest.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears procedural and neutral rather than controversial. The bill is framed as a routine judgment appropriation, which typically indicates legislative acknowledgment of an existing legal obligation rather than policy disagreement. No opposition, amendments, or divided vote history is shown in the provided context.
The main potential point of contention is fiscal: the bill commits $400,000 in state general fund dollars to pay a specific private judgment, which may raise concerns about use of public funds and the state’s liability exposure. Another possible issue is the inclusion of interest, court costs, and expert witness fees, though the bill limits those payments to what was awarded in the judgment and requires the judgment to be final. No specific objections from legislators, agencies, or affected parties are included in the provided discussion materials.