ILNews

100 tort claim notices filed in State Fair stage collapse

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Note: This story has been updated to reflect the most recent numbers released by the Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

As of Nov. 2, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General has received 100 tort claim notices related to the stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair in August. The deadline for submission of the tort claim form was Nov. 1.

Bryan Corbin, litigation public information officer for the AG’s office, said the number may increase slightly because the office will accept any claims postmarked by midnight Nov. 1.

Of the 100 claims, 49 were re-filed using the tort claim form created by Kenneth Feinberg. Before the form was created, some had sent tort claim notice letters or used the standard Indiana tort claim form.

Corbin said some of the original claims were submitted jointly by multiple members of the same family, so they were asked to re-file for each injured member. The attorney general’s claims management staff will be reviewing the claim notices and following up for any additional documents, such as medical records, that may be needed.

The timeline for filing a tort claim notice was informally shortened in order to expedite the payment process. Corbin said the office heard from people that they wanted to be compensated now for the injuries, not years from now. Claimants legally still have 270 days from the Aug. 13 incident to file a tort claim notice.

Those who filed claim notices are seeking payment from the $5 million Indiana Tort Claim Fund. Seven people died and more than 40 people were injured in the stage collapse at the Sugarland concert Aug. 13. Some lawmakers have indicated they would like to consider raising the $5 million cap to address the needs of the victims in this incident or whether it should be raised in general, although it appears unlikely that the matter will be heard during the 2012 legislative session.

A Valparaiso attorney has filed a federal class-action lawsuit challenging the cap on grounds that it violates due process and equal protection because it denies individuals their fair share.

A relief fund was established by the Indiana State Fair Commission to distribute money to victims of the collapse, providing between $3,000 and $25,000 per injured person, depending on the length of stay in a hospital, and $35,000 for death claims.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT