Prohibits recovery of certain damages for unauthorized aliens
Summary
HB 436 creates new Civil Code Article 2315.12 to limit certain damage awards in automobile accident lawsuits involving an “unauthorized alien,” defined by reference to federal immigration law as a person unlawfully present in the United States. Under the bill, such a claimant may not recover general damages or past and future wages in an action for damages arising from an automobile accident.
The bill also includes an exception for claims made under an uninsured or underinsured motorist policy when the unauthorized alien is named as an insured. In practical terms, the measure narrows the categories of damages available to a specific class of plaintiffs in auto-accident litigation while leaving insurance-contract claims under UM/UIM coverage intact.
Impact
HB 436 amends Louisiana civil liability law by adding a new statutory limitation on recoverable damages in automobile accident cases. It affects personal injury plaintiffs who are determined to be unlawfully present in the United States, as well as defendants, insurers, and courts handling auto-accident claims. The bill does not bar suit entirely, but it removes access to general damages and wage-loss damages in covered cases, potentially reducing exposure for tort defendants and changing settlement and litigation values.
Sentiment
The bill advanced with clear support in both chambers, passing the House 68-17, the Senate 27-10 on final passage, and the House again 73-24 when concurring in Senate amendments. The vote pattern suggests majority Republican support and meaningful but not majority Democratic opposition, with several Senate amendment votes showing sharper division. Overall, the legislative sentiment appears favorable to the bill, though not unanimous.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of unauthorized immigrants in civil damages cases, particularly whether it unfairly singles out a class of plaintiffs and limits compensation for injuries unrelated to immigration status. Opponents likely objected to restricting recovery of general damages and lost wages, while supporters framed the measure as a limitation on awards for persons unlawfully present in the country. The amendment votes indicate additional disagreement over possible changes to the bill’s scope or wording, but the final version retained the core restriction.