ILNews

Zoeller: Most claimants agree to State Fair settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than 80 percent of victims who sued after the State Fair stage collapse last year say they want to participate in the $13.2 million public-private settlement negotiated between the Indiana attorney general’s office and two defendant companies, the AG’s office said Thursday.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement that 51 of 62 eligible claimants indicated by the Aug. 1 deadline that they want to participate in the settlement package.
 
Mid-America Sound Corp. and James Thomas Engineering Inc. in June agreed to contribute $7.2 million to a settlement fund for victims that also included $6 million in state money approved for victim compensation by the Indiana General Assembly. The money is in addition to the state’s cap of $5 million per event.

Now the companies have through Aug. 15 to review the acceptance paperwork and determine if conditions are met to proceed with their tendered offer, according to Zoeller’s statement. The settlement is conditioned on a sufficient ratio of claimants from the largest claims category accepting it and releasing the two companies from liability.

Zoeller said the office would continue to accept mailed correspondence from claimants postmarked by Aug. 1, so the number accepting the settlement package could rise.

“This is an expedited and reasonable settlement that puts victims first and will provide for the immediate medical and financial needs now, rather than after waging lengthy and uncertain litigation,” Zoeller said.

If the companies’ criteria are met for the private settlement, arbitration hearings will take place in September to calculate the precise amounts that participating claimants will receive, based on medical costs and other data, the statement said.

“We respect the right of the few claimants who may decide to turn down the settlement, but it is important to move forward so that the vast majority get immediate relief,” Zoeller said.

According to the statement, the General Assembly specified how much certain categories of claimants will receive from the state’s portion:  Estates of the seven deceased will be increased from the $300,000 they received last year up to $700,000, the maximum allowed. Claimants with non-permanent injuries will have 100 percent of their out-of-pocket medical costs reimbursed out of the public money, on top of the 65 percent they were paid last year.

If the companies accept the size of the pool of claimants, arbitrators will designate the amounts for the injured claimants out of the public money as well as amounts for all categories of claimants out of the separate pool of private money, Zoeller said in a statement.

 

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT