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.”


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  2. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.

  3. maybe if some of the socia workers would treat the foster parents better, they would continue to fostr.

  4. We have been asked to take in a 2 no old baby because mother is in very unstable situation. We want to do this but will need help with expenses such as medical and formula... Do we have to have custody thru court?

  5. Very troubling. A competent public defender is very much the right of every indigent person in the US or the Fifth amendment becomes meaningless. And considering more and more of us are becoming poorer and poorer under this "system," the need for this are greater than ever.... maybe they should study the Federals and see how they manage their program? And here's to thanking all the PD attorneys out there who do a good job.