Indiana lawmakers ponder more for state fair victims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana lawmakers could provide an additional $4 million for victims of last summer's stage collapse at the state fair.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale, said Monday he plans to introduce legislation for fair victims by the end of the week or early next week.

Espich has not settled on a final amount, but said $4.2 million would pay for medical costs not already covered by the $5 million already paid out by the state and give each family of those who died an additional $400,000. The additional money would help make victims and their families "financially whole" again, he said, but would not be enough to compensate for every loss.

"There is no right or wrong answer on these things," Espich said. He plans on adding the money to a broader spending bill that could include funding for full-day kindergarten and restore some cuts in education spending.

Gov. Mitch Daniels included a one-time payout for fair victims in his 2012 legislative agenda but said he wants to hear from lawmakers before deciding on a specific amount.

Seven people died and 58 others were injured in August when stage rigging collapsed at the fair before a scheduled performance by the country duo Sugarland. International engineering firm Thornton Tomasetti is conducting an investigation of the rigging and national emergency planning advisers Witt Associates are reviewing the state's emergency plans and its response to the collapse.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller and Kenneth Feinberg, a victims' claims expert who crafted formulas for compensating victims of tragedies ranging from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to the Virginia Tech shootings, developed a plan that covered two-thirds of medical costs for most of the people who survived the collapse. It also paid out at least $300,000 to each of the families of the deceased.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, said he has not had a chance to review any state fair proposals yet, but Espich's idea sounds logical.

Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, introduced legislation to raise the state's total liability to $22 million and increase the individual maximum payout to $1.3 million. He came up with the amount using cost-of-living adjustments since the $5 million cap was set in 1974. He has not been able to get a hearing for his legislation yet.

DeLaney said the response he has received from constituents supporting his measure is: "'Why don't we just fess up and pay a fair amount?'"


  • why ?
    Why do we have laws in place if we are going to change them when we feel this or that deserve more. I was outside my home that day saw the storm coming an seek shelter.Where is sugarland part in this ? did they not say they wasn't going to delay the show because of scheduling?

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 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.