IBJNews

Elevator company wants indemnity from IRT

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Illinois elevator company wants a judge to force the Indiana Repertory Theatre to protect it from liability in a lawsuit brought by a catering worker who fell down the elevator shaft at the downtown theater in 2007.

Charlie Stamps of Indianapolis sued IRT and Kone Elevators for negligence after he fell four stories. Stamps, who worked for MBP Distinctive Catering, was operating a hot cart near the elevator doors on Dec. 14, 2007, according to his November 2009 lawsuit in Marion County. When he reached down for the electrical cord, the elevator doors opened, and he fell down the shaft to the basement.

Kone, a Finnish company with its U.S. operations based in Moline, Ill., claims in a federal lawsuit filed this month that its maintenance agreement with the IRT requires it to indemnify the elevator company. Kone says a second agreement requires IRT to name Kone on its insurance policy for commercial bodily injury and property damage liability.

The company wants the judge to declare the not-for-profit IRT's obligations and pay Kone's costs in both lawsuits.

Stamps' lawsuit doesn't request a specific amount of damages, but Kone thinks the figure could be high. Kone's attorneys cited a deposition in which Stamps said he spent several weeks in the hospital with surgery to his wrist and knee, and that he expects more surgery.

A representative of the IRT could not be reached Thursday morning.

So far IRT has rebuffed Kone's requests for indemnity. Lewis Wagner insurance lawyer Richard Shoultz sent Kone's attorneys a letter last August explaining that the company was relying on an inaccurate version of the agreement, and that the company had not responded to IRT's concerns.

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. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT