Louisiana auto insurance proposals include limits on ‘unauthorized alien' lawsuits
House Bill 436, sponsored by Rep. Gabe Firment, R-Pollock, cleared the House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure without objection. It would prohibit 'unauthorized aliens' — defined in the measure as individuals illegally in the United States under federal immigration law — from receiving general damages stemming from auto accidents. General damages include compensation for pain and suffering, but the proposal would still allow recovery for 'special damages,' such as medical expenses and property damage.
Firment, an insurance consultant, said the purpose of his bill is to help address the state's auto insurance crisis while discouraging illegal immigration.
Rep. Nicholas Muscarello, R-Hammond, questioned the constitutionality of the legislation, pointing out the state could be meddling in federal immigration law. Muscarello practices civil law and is the lead criminal prosecutor for two municipalities in Tangipahoa Parish.
'The Supreme Court said that we can't enforce alien laws. That would be a federal position,' Muscarello said. 'So it might be something we could look at because there might be some constitutional issues.'
Firment said his bill, which moves next to the House floor, is very narrowly focused and believes it would pass constitutional scrutiny.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Another proposal, House Bill 439, sponsored by Rep. Troy Hebert, R-Lafayette, aims to limit the amount of money lawyers can make from lawsuits. It would limit contingency fees, the money a lawyer makes only if they win a case, to 10% on the first $15,000 in damages. Any amounts beyond that would not be regulated.
While presenting his bill to the committee, Hebert revealed his personal motivation for the proposal. He said his daughter was involved in a minor accident that he said resulted in almost no property damage. According to Hebert, the other driver voiced no complaints on the scene and was uninjured, yet she sued his insurer a year later. The driver sought injury damages totaling $15,000, the minimum bodily injury coverage required for auto insurance policies in Louisiana.
'Excuse my language, but I am pissed about this,' Hebert said.
Hebert, a real estate professional, said he tried to convince his insurer to fight the lawsuit, but ultimately it chose to pay $15,000 to settle the case.
Hebert said a limit on legal fees would discourage lawyers from pushing to get quick settlements from insurance companies, but his proposal raised concerns with some lawmakers.
Rep. Ed Larvadain, D-Alexandria, who is a lawyer, said auto injury cases take more work than just mailing out demand letters to insurance companies. Personal injury attorneys have to interview witnesses, consult with doctors and schedule property damage adjusters, he said.
Rep. Lauren Ventrella, R-Greenwell Springs, is also an attorney who handles auto accident claims. She said she doesn't like the idea of the government fixing the prices of goods and services, though she ultimately voted in favor of Hebert's bill.
'My concern is this is an overstep with regards to free market economy,' Ventrella said.
The measure cleared the committee in a 10-2 vote along party lines with Larvadain and Rep. Sylvia Taylor, D-LaPlace, who is a retired judge, opposed the bill.
The committee also gave its approval to a proposal that puts a ceiling on lawsuit damages in all personal injury cases, including auto accidents.
House Bill 435, sponsored by Rep. Peter Egan, R-Covington, advanced in a 10-2 vote with the same two Democrats opposed.
'I'm trying to lower rates in Louisiana,' said Egan, a health care company founder. 'I don't know if this is the bill that does it.'
Egan's bill would cap general damage awards at $5 million, which Muscarello pointed out is already the maximum payout on commercial auto policies million in Louisiana. Insurance companies won't pay any more than that regardless of how much a jury awards a plaintiff, he said.
Lawmakers heard testimony in support of Egan's bill from Mark Younger, who runs a produce farm in Addis. Younger said his farm was sued after one of his drivers was involved in a minor fender bender with no apparent injuries. His insurance costs became so high that he now uses an out-of-state trucking company, which Younger said pays lower insurance premiums, to deliver his products.
'It's like we're hiring one wing of the mafia to protect us from another wing of the mafia – the Louisiana State Bar,' Younger said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months
The Supreme Court's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump's effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are 'outdated,' 'poorly reasoned' or 'egregiously wrong.' While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on average than earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably on abortion but also affirmative action and government regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Who Trump can fire Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have only expedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, from being fired by the president without cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree 'that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. 'For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. 'Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. Flood of campaign cash? The high court has already agreed to hear an appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could 'blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates.' In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an 'aberration' that was 'plainly wrong the day it was decided.' If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, 'it should overrule that outdated decision.' Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to shoot down campaign finance rules as violating the First Amendment. Obergefell's anniversary A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a 'mistake' that 'must be corrected.' 'If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,' Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote recently that there are 'multiple flaws' with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, a wedding cake baker or a website developer – likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. 'They are not exercising their own rights,' he wrote, 'but the powers of the state.' Race and redistricting Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers on Louisiana's fraught congressional districts map and whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described 'non-Black voters,' it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The court heard oral arguments in the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June of holding the case for more arguments. Earlier this month, the court ordered more briefing on the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, the court ordered officials in Alabama to redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. 'Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there,' said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging over redistricting and the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. When soldiers sue Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a 1950 Supreme Court decision that severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose 'incident to service.' The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. 'This court should overrule Feres,' Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative, wrote earlier this year in a similar case the court declined to hear. 'It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.' Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the 'sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers' adopted by the Feres decision 'is at odds' with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has 'been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court.' Prayer for relief Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-old Supreme Court precedent that barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religion have shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe 'as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent,' the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. 'Santa Fe,' they said, 'was dubious from the outset.' It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high court reinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to 'a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.' Kennedy submitted a brief in the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, 'has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Why in the world is Trump punishing Moldova with tariffs?
President Trump's tariff blasts continue. The White House released its latest list on July 31 and it is clear that no nation is safe — not allies, enemies, neighbors or distant lands. No menacing power escapes the vigilance of the president's team, ever alert to those 'ripping off' the United States of America. Case in point: Moldova. Dominating both sides of the Dniester River — well, one side actually — this Eastern European colossus of 2.3 million people (about the size of Houston) could inflict mortal damage on the American economy. In 2024 alone, the U.S. bought nearly $136 million (with an 'm') worth of goods from the Moldovans, whereas they bought only $51 million from us. With the U.S. economy valued at more than $30 trillion (with a 'T') we could probably only bear such abuse for … well, forever. In a July 9 letter to Moldovan President Maia Sandu, Trump made clear that America will not be bullied by Moldova any longer. He imposed a tariff of 25 percent on every bottle of wine or fruit juice the Moldovans force us to buy. Calling the deficit with Moldova a 'major threat to our Economy and, indeed, our National Security!' the president warned of even higher tariffs if Moldova retaliates or tries to send goods into the U.S. through transshipment. The letter accuses Moldova of taking advantage of us for 'many years.' Tariff rates are one of Trump's favorite weapons, employed under the dubious premise that the U.S. faces a trade deficit 'emergency.' The legality of such action aside — the Supreme Court has yet to rule — the president uses this weapon for a variety of non-economic goals. He has threatened Canada for indicating it might recognize a Palestinian state, and Brazil to try to save former President Jair Bolsonaro from prosecution. Moldova has committed no such offenses — at least none charged — but Trump wants trade with Moldova and a host of other countries to be based on 'reciprocity.' Whatever the precipitating dynamics, punishing Moldova for its involvement in international trade serves no reasonable Western security or broader policy interests. It undermines them. Sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania, Moldova has a long history of not being a country. The people of this region, who were unwillingly traded between Romania and Russia for nearly a century, gained independence from a collapsing Soviet Union in 1991. With a population that is 75 percent Moldovan-Romanian, some within the Russian and Ukrainian minorities feared the country's absorption into neighboring Romania. During a brief internal war in 1992, Moscow positioned a 'peacekeeping force' on the eastern side of Dniester River to guard the self-proclaimed state of Transnistria — which is still there, not recognized even by Russia. This force is small, locally recruited and considered less than formidable. But it is part of a sustained campaign by Moscow to prevent Moldova from embracing the West. This same motive drove Vladimir Putin to unleash a brutal invasion and occupation of much larger Ukraine. If victorious there, he is unlikely to be more accommodating toward Moldova. Moldova is the poorest country in Europe, and its elected leaders and population have been seeking stability. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Moldova applied to join the EU. It was quickly granted candidate status, and negotiations for membership began. In 2024, the country reelected pro-EU President Sandu and in a referendum enshrined the country's 'European course' in its constitution — despite massive Russian interference and disinformation. The EU has not been cowed by Moscow and developed a generous aid and development package. Most Moldovan goods enter the world's largest trading bloc duty-free, a policy that was further extended to agricultural products last month. Under President Biden, the U.S. had been similarly supportive, providing more than $400 million in military and humanitarian aid in part to help reduce the country's dependence on Russian gas. Trump sees no need for aid to Moldova, or indeed for most foreign assistance. Other moves supporting Trump's 'America First' orientation also penalize Moldova. Eliminating the U.S. Agency for International Development meant the loss of virtually all projects in Moldova — including for democracy promotion and economic and energy development. At the same time, cutting resources for election monitoring and an independent press leaves the field open for Russian interference. Such indifference, along with Trump's shifting attitude toward Ukraine and transactional foreign policy, leaves Moldova exposed. A study by the Stimson Center concluded, 'With a White House that seems increasingly eager to align its perspectives with Moscow at the expense of traditional allies, its willingness to support Moldova's democratic transformation in the face of Russian opposition is now uncertain.' Neighboring Romania, a member of both the EU and NATO, has a huge stake in the fate of Moldova. An intimidated or occupied satellite country — a second Belarus — on the Alliance's more than 400-mile border would dramatically change the strategic equation. This should get Washington's attention — at least of those willing to honor the American commitment to NATO. Preserving an independent and economically healthy Moldova thus serves European and American interests. Increasing the cost of doing business with the U.S. and damaging democratic efforts there does not. Supporting Moldova costs the U.S. very little. Excusing a tiny trade deficit to a strategically important democracy does not make Americans suckers. Helping Moldova does not require a military commitment. The country has been cooperating with NATO but is constitutionally neutral. Rather than punishing the country, the U.S. could and should offer support. This could be based on a view of the geopolitical map — or, even better, from an appreciation of a resilient people's desire for democratic choice. Ronald H. Linden is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he directed the Center for European Studies and the Center for Russian and East European Studies. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
California Republicans accuse Newsom of 'sinister redistricting scheme' after Trump mockery
After California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced he would move forward with a state redistricting plan – replete with implied mockery of President Donald Trump – California Republicans responded late Thursday. Newsom had declared "liberation day" – an apparent reference to Trump's own moniker for the day he introduced a comprehensive tariff regime – and preceded the announcement with "ALL CAPS" social media posts meant to mock the president's penchant for doing the same on Truth Social. California Republicans were not amused and pushed back on the project that could put an end to their already muted federal representation in America's most populous state. "Californians demand and deserve transparency from their government. Governor Newsom's sinister redistricting scheme is the opposite," the top Republican on the state's Elections Committee said. California's Top Republican Rips Dems Blocking 'Oil Goldmine' After New Trump Project Rebuffs Schiff "There is no public input," lamented state Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo, R-Tulare, as the state hosts nine Republican federal House lawmakers of the 52 total. The state's last Republican senator was Sen. John Seymour in 1991 – who had been appointed for a brief stint after Sen. Pete Wilson resigned to take the governor's office. Read On The Fox News App Macedo suggested Newsom would go to great lengths just to grab national headlines, no matter what the "will of the voters" is in reality. "Governor Newsom is on a mission to take power away from the California Citizens Redistricting Commission," Macedo said of the panel that typically would help decide decennial mapping. "Governor Newsom's power-grab erodes public trust in our government. Undermining the commission's hard work … is shortsighted and insulting to voters," said Macedo, whose caucus holds 19 of the 60 assembly seats. Mamdani Studies 'America's Worst Mayor' Brandon Johnson To Avoid His Political Pitfalls: Report Newsom, however, defended his decision, saying that Trump "poked the bear" – the animal which also appears on the Golden State's flag – and that California will therefore push back. "DONALD 'TACO' TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, 'MISSED' THE DEADLINE!!! CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS,' THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!)," Newsom wrote in his Trump-esque post. Trump has supported a "simple redrawing" of the Texas congressional map to represent the state's Republican bent, he said. "We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats. We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. And I won Texas, I got the highest vote in the history of Texas as you probably know. And we are entitled to five more seats," Trump recently said. Sen. Brian Jones, R-San Diego, leader of the upper chamber's minority in Sacramento, directed Fox News Digital to recent comments prior to the official announcement by Newsom. "Californians didn't elect Newsom to play gerrymandering games to boost his presidential campaign, they elected him to solve problems here at home," said Jones, who leads 10 senators compared to the Democrats' 30. "What he's doing now undermines the independent redistricting commission that voters created to stop exactly this kind of political manipulation." He also ripped Democrats after hearing that California Secretary of State Shirley Weber told reporters the legislature would have only a short window to schedule a special election for redistricting to coincide with the November elections. California lawmakers are on summer recess until Monday. The process would have to finish by next Friday; five days. "Once again, Newsom convinced Senate and Assembly Democrats to roll over, ignore voters, rush sham hearings, and violate the California Constitution," Jones said. "Democracy is dead in California, killed by Newsom's corrupt pursuit of the presidency." Fox News Digital's Paul Steinhauser contributed to this article source: California Republicans accuse Newsom of 'sinister redistricting scheme' after Trump mockery
