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 enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT