ILNews

Defendant in trial over concert hall defects tries to halt repairs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys for the Michigan contractor being sued over construction defects at Carmel’s Palladium concert hall have asked a Hamilton County court to halt repair work immediately to preserve evidence in the case.

Indianapolis-based Kightlinger & Gray LLP filed a motion Thursday in Hamilton Superior Court requesting an emergency order to stop ongoing remediation, saying Steel Supply & Engineering Co.’s engineers need to examine the roof trusses to defend the company against new allegations.

A trial on construction defects had been scheduled for next week, but recently was postponed until December.

Construction of the $119 million Palladium stopped for about three months in 2009 after an inspection revealed a rip in the structural steel supporting the venue’s domed roof. Work resumed after extensive repairs.

The Carmel Redevelopment Commission sued Steel Supply in 2011, alleging that the company failed to properly fabricate steel for the project. The commission is seeking about $5 million in damages.

Steel Supply has denied liability, laying the blame on the project engineer’s design, which it says caused some of the steel columns supporting the roof to fail.

The defense team discovered and reported new potential problems with the roof trusses in January, during the legal discovery process, and city consultants came up with a remediation plan in March.

In April, the city said the venue would undergo another $140,000 in repairs, and crews have been working around its performance schedule to weld stiffeners and small plates into place.

That work should be done next week, according to Thursday’s court filing, but Steel Supply has not had access to the engineering analysis that led to the repairs and has not been able to inspect the structural steel.

Court records also indicate that fireproofing planned for the area following remediation will prevent further review of the area.

Such actions “would result in the spoliation of evidence, and will irreparably harm the defendants, and ultimately adversely affect their ability to protect their rights in the action,” the filing said.

Although the commission’s original lawsuit did not include allegations about the roof trusses, the filing said city attorneys advised the court during a May 24 status conference that they plan to amend the complaint “to assert new issues related to roof trusses and potentially other issues.”

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT