ILNews

COA sides with Live Nation in naming dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the Murat Temple Association’s claim that Live Nation Worldwide violated terms of its lease agreement.

MTA claims that Live Nation, which leases the MTA’s Indianapolis 1909 Murat Theatre Building and 1922 Mosque Building, breached its contract when it sold naming rights for those spaces to Old National Bank. But according to terms of the lease, Live Nation is entitled to the rights “enjoyed by the owner of the building,” and therefore is entitled to publicly rename the premises, the appeals court held.

The dispute began in January 2010 when MTA learned that Live Nation was planning to sell naming rights to part or all of the Shrine Center. On January 28, 2010, MTA delivered a letter to Live Nation stating that MTA’s approval was required for any name change of the leased premises.

On March 16, 2010, Live Nation announced that it had entered into a naming rights agreement with Old National. On that same day, MTA sent a letter to Live Nation and Old National objecting to any name change to the leased premises and asserting that Live Nation lacked the right to rename the leased premises. Nevertheless, Live Nation placed a marquee on the Mosque Building bearing the name “Old National Centre.”

Subsequently, MTA filed a complaint against Live Nation and Old National. MTA accused Live Nation of breach of contract and conversion. MTA accused Old National of conversion, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and tortious interference with a business relationship.

MTA maintains that by placing a new marquee on the building bearing the name “Old National Centre” and by using the name “Old National Centre” in advertising, Live Nation has effectively and inappropriately renamed the entire Shrine Center, rather than just the leased premises. The appeals court held that according to Article XII of the lease, Live Nation was authorized to place “signs and advertising matter” “upon any part of the leased premises.” The public may perceive the Shrine Center differently due to the installation of the marquee and Live Nation’s use of the Old National Centre name in advertising, but regardless of the public’s perception, Live Nation has not exceeded the scope of its rights under the lease, the appeals court held.

The appeals court stated that in any conversion action, criminal intent is an essential element that must be proven. In Murat Temple Association, Inc. v. Live Nation Worldwide, et al., No. 49A02-1008-PL-952, the MTA alleged that Live Nation and Old National both knew that MTA had objected to their negotiations and had told them that Live Nation had no authority to sell naming rights for the Shrine Center in whole or in part. MTA further alleged that despite that knowledge of MTA’s objection, Live Nation and Old National intentionally and knowingly executed a naming rights agreement, thereby exerting unauthorized control over MTA’s right to publicly name the Shrine Center. However, because the lease authorizes Live Nation to rename the leased premises, MTA’s conversion claim fails, because neither Live Nation nor Old National exerted unauthorized control over MTA’s property, the appeals court held.

The appeals court stated that Section 1.01 of the lease agreement provides a broad grant of authority to Live Nation, including naming rights, and the parties negotiated only one limitation on naming rights, in Section 3.02, which states that Live Nation must retain the phrase “Murat Theatre” in the name of the 1909 Theatre Building. But that clause applies only to “theatre business within the leased premises,” not the entire leased premises.

“Presumably, if MTA had intended to further restrict Live Nation’s authority to rename all or part of the Leased Premises, the parties would have added additional limitations,” the COA wrote in its opinion.
 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT