ILNews

Trial set in Carmel's complaint on Palladium construction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Mediation is scheduled for May 21 in a 2-year-old lawsuit the city of Carmel brought over defects discovered during construction of its signature Palladium concert hall.

Barring a last-minute settlement between the Carmel Redevelopment Commission and Michigan-based contractor Steel Supply & Engineering Co. or a delay, Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation will begin a two-week bench trial June 10.

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.

Carmel filed suit in 2011, saying Steel Supply failed to properly fabricate steel for the project. It is seeking about $5 million in damages.

Steel Supply has denied liability, laying the blame on a flawed design it says caused some of the steel columns supporting the roof to fail. Design duties were the responsibility of the project engineer, who is not named in the lawsuit, according to a statement from defense attorney Pfenne Cantrell.

“All fabrication drawings were approved by the construction manager, the architect and the engineer of record prior to fabrication, and the steel that was supplied and erected conformed with those approved drawings,” said Cantrell, of Indianapolis-based Kightlinger & Gray LLP.

Palladium roof problems have persisted, and the city last month said the venue would undergo another $140,000 in repairs. Crews were to retrofit the roof trusses, a news release said, welding additional stiffeners and small plates into place.

Court records show those deficiencies were identified by the defense team during the legal discovery process. Steel Supply notified the city of “potential issues with certain trusses … at locations other than the dome roof” on Jan. 30, and Carmel responded with a remediation plan in late March.

But the city did not disclose details of its consultant’s analysis, an explanation of the plan or an estimate of the remediation costs, Steel Supply said in asking the court to exclude any truss-related claims from the trial.

Nation granted that request, issuing an April 29 order making it clear he would sustain defense objections related to evidence concerning the trusses.

CRC Executive Director Les Olds did not return a phone call from the Indianapolis Business Journal this week, but the city reportedly told the court that the truss damage is “independent from the issues raised by the complaint,” according to Nation’s order.

It was not immediately clear whether Carmel would take additional legal action related to the trusses.

The Indianapolis Business Journal is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT