State fair settlement fails

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Mid-America Sound Corp., one of two companies that offered an additional $7.2 million to victims of the Indiana State Fair stage collapse, announced it will not proceed with its offer after deciding not enough claimants accepted the settlement arrangement.

Mid-America and James Thomas Engineering offered the additional funds in exchange for a sufficient number of victims releasing both companies from lawsuits. Mid-America decided that although 51 of the 62 eligible claimants accepted the offer, that number wasn’t enough to proceed with the settlement.

The company announced it was withdrawing its offer Wednesday evening. Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said the state will proceed with distributing the $6 million in supplemental state-provided funds to the victims and will seek to facilitate discussions between the claimants and James Thomas Engineering.

“Because State Fair victims said they needed financial assistance sooner rather than later, my office made an effort to facilitate a private settlement to increase the relief available. It was worthwhile to try to bring the claimants and defendant companies together; but since the parties did not reach an agreement, we will move to distribute the original $6 million the Legislature appropriated, well before the January 2013 deadline, and we will continue to look for opportunities to serve the victims,” Zoeller said in a statement released Wednesday night.

Because the agreement fell through, claimants can still pursue lawsuits against Mid-America or other defendants not a party to settlement agreements.

Zoeller had attempted to resolve indemnification claims made by Mid-America against the state. The company claims in legal pleadings that the state must cover its legal costs in lawsuits related to the stage-rigging collapse, which the state denies. A bill passed by the General Assembly this year gave the AG’s office the ability to resolve those claims. It also contained language stating that claimants who receive supplemental funds may not sue the state under an indemnification claim.

James Thomas Engineering is not suing the state.

“On a personal note I will admit to some disappointment, but I believe the public-private effort was nonetheless worthwhile. Without putting the State at any risk, we provided an opportunity to speed more than twice the funds to the victims, which has always been my focus. It's not my role to assign blame that an agreement was not reached, but I will continue to offer whatever assistance my office can provide,” Zoeller added.

The attorney general’s office will circulate additional information to eligible claimants and their attorneys this week information about distribution of the $6 million.



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. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.