ILNews

64 claimants accepted settlement offers stemming from stage collapse

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced Monday that 64 of 65 claimants offered settlements in the Indiana State Fair stage collapse have accepted the offers. Checks will be issued by year-end, the AG’s office said, paying out the entire $5 million in tort claim funds the state has available by law.

"Deciding on compensation for the victims of the State Fair tragedy is one of the most difficult duties the Indiana Attorney General's Office has ever undertaken. From the start we knew that no matter how we divided the $5 million available, it could never replace the seven lives lost nor erase the pain of the injured and grieving. We did all that was possible to treat victims equitably and to assist them with their medical and financial needs within the amount the law allows," Zoeller said.

Defending the state's Tort Claim Fund, which is made up of tax dollars, from claims and potential lawsuits is one of the duties of the attorney general's office. After the deadly stage rigging collapse Aug. 13 at the Indiana State Fair, Zoeller announced that he would make available the $5 million in tort claim funds without regard to liability.

Working with nationally known expert Kenneth Feinberg, who administered victim compensation programs after 9/11 and the BP oil spill, Zoeller's office designed a victim-centered program where victims could submit tort claims to the state and receive settlement payments on an expedited basis, even if they did not hire an attorney.

A total of 114 individual claimants – including the representatives of the seven deceased – filed a total 101 claims and used a customized State Fair claim form the AG’s office developed. The state also retained claims management firm JWF Specialty Company to receive and review the claims and follow up with claimants to obtain additional medical documentation.

Under the compensation protocol Feinberg helped design, the estates of the seven deceased victims were guaranteed settlements of at least $300,000 each. Another 58 claimants who were most seriously injured and met at least one other protocol criteria were offered payments equal to approximately 65 percent of their medical and hospital bills submitted to date. Since that amount will exhaust the rest of the $5 million the sate has available, claimants with non-physical injuries did not receive settlement offers under the protocol.

On Dec.6, the state sent offer notices to 65 eligible claimants or their representatives requesting a prompt reply. Although claimants had the legal right to decline the offers, all but one accepted, including the estates of all seven deceased victims. The remaining $1,691 that one claimant's attorney declined was redistributed among the other 64 claimants and their offers were recalculated. In accepting offers, claimants sign settlement documents releasing the state of Indiana from future liability. That does not prevent claimants from pursuing separate legal actions against other private entities over the stage rigging collapse.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT