IBJNews

Airport authority sues insurance carrier for $9.2M

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Airport Authority is suing an insurance carrier that provided coverage during construction of the airport’s midfield terminal, claiming the company failed to pay millions of dollars the authority incurred following a construction collapse.

Filed this week in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, the authority’s lawsuit claims Hartford, Conn.-based Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America owes it $9.2 million on a claim it made totaling about $13.4 million.

The authority said it purchased a builder’s risk policy from Travelers for all phases of construction of the $1.2 billion terminal, which began in July 2005.

Less than two years later, on Jan. 24, 2007, a steel-beam collapse jeopardized the terminal’s scheduled opening by pushing back  construction five months and delaying the opening until February 2009, according to the suit.

But because of the efforts and expenses undertaken by the authority to reduce the delay in completion, the project opened in November 2008, about three months earlier than it would have if the authority had not agreed to the additional expenses, the suit said.

The authority’s suit is asking that Traveler’s pay the $9.2 million it incurred to mitigate the delay in opening the terminal. The authority said it paid extra to resolve change orders and claims brought by contractors and consultants, to investigate and inspect the construction site to assess repairs, and for overtime.

A call to Traveler's for comment was not immediately returned Friday morning.

 

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So as I read this the one question that continues to come to me to ask is. Didn't Indiana only have a couple of exchanges for people to opt into which were very high because we really didn't want to expect the plan. So was this study done during that time and if so then I can understand these numbers. I also understand that we have now opened up for more options for hoosiers to choose from. Please correct if I'm wrong and if I'm not why was this not part of the story so that true overview could be taken away and not just parts of it to continue this negative tone against the ACA. I look forward to the clarity.

  2. It's really very simple. All forms of transportation are subsidized. All of them. Your tax money already goes toward every single form of transportation in the state. It is not a bad thing to put tax money toward mass transit. The state spends over 1,000,000,000 (yes billion) on roadway expansions and maintenance every single year. If you want to cry foul over anything cry foul over the overbuilding of highways which only serve people who can afford their own automobile.

  3. So instead of subsidizing a project with a market-driven scope, you suggest we subsidize a project that is way out of line with anything that can be economically sustainable just so we can have a better-looking skyline?

  4. Downtowner, if Cummins isn't getting expedited permitting and tax breaks to "do what they do", then I'd be happy with letting the market decide. But that isn't the case, is it?

  5. Patty, this commuter line provides a way for workers (willing to work lower wages) to get from Marion county to Hamilton county. These people are running your restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and retail stores. I don't see a lot of residents of Carmel working these jobs.

ADVERTISEMENT