Email link

Respond to editor

Read comments (9)

Share link

Insurance claim denial impacts East Depot actions

Tuesday, July 7, 2009
By Brian Mosely

Shelbyville officials may be running into legal snags with getting money from a property owner for the demolition of two buildings.

City attorney Ginger Shofner told Shelbyville's city council that the insurance company for Alice Albrecht, the owner of 109 East Depot St., one of the unsafe buildings brought down last year, has denied her claim.

Shofner said that Albrecht has decided to pursue litigation against her insurance company and that her attorney will keep the city apprised of the situation.

The city is suing Albrecht for costs associated with last year's razing and restoration of the site on East Depot, totalling $225,215, where two buildings once stood near the public square.

The building at 113 E. Depot was damaged last year during the demolition of Albrecht's property, which was considered a dangerous structure.

Contractors and engineers said at the time it would cost over $200,000 to repair it and bring up to code, so the council voted to tear it down as well.

Shofner has also been doing legal research on the matter to see if the city should file its debt collection action.

She advised going ahead and filing the complaint but said the city does not have to take further action and Shofner said the city can "sit on" the lawsuit until Albrecht's legal action against her insurance company is resolved.

A public hearing will also need to be held in August so that the council can certify the amount of money owed to the city over the demolition, Shofner advised.

Comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on t-g.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

How surprising is this turn of events? Who would have ever thought that an insurance company would deny such a claim????? Surely not the City of Shelbyville with their good faith attitude that it would be reimbursed for their expenses.

-- Posted by writeattitude on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, at 10:13 AM

Guess you would have had the building collapse and kill someone first then? Then you would have been complaining that the City did not take any action. writeattitude, nice to see that you can sit behind your computer screen and know everything then.

-- Posted by Brett Favre on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, at 5:53 PM

The city has just lost $225,215.Forget about it.

-- Posted by grandpat on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, at 5:05 AM

BRETT FAVRE

No the building should not have collapsed and fallen on anyone if everyone was doing their job. Buildings (especially older buildings) being utilized as businesses should have been inspected on a regular basis throughout the years by codes, fire and other departments. The person obtaining rent and profiting from these businesses should have been cited long before the building got into such a state of disrepair and forced to do something with the property. I'm tired of your insulting remarks each time I make a statement. I'm sorry if this is a tender spot to you, it seems as if you may be on the payroll of the codes department or someone who was slacking. I will not back down from my original belief that this expense should NEVER have fallen into the City's lap, it should have been the liability of the property owner, and NO I will not forget about this kind of waste and loss. I'll remember full well at each and every election!

-- Posted by writeattitude on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, at 12:14 PM

Didn't the owners of the other buildigs have insurance?

-- Posted by Lex4990 on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, at 7:21 PM

writeattitude

This building was one of the oldest remaining buildings located close to the square. It was built in the mid 1800's. So in retrospect then, who is at fault for this building becoming decrepit and in decline to the point where it posed a risk to the public walking on the adjacent sidewalk?

I seriously do not believe that during the 1800's or the early part of the 1900's that the City of Shelbyville had any adopted building codes to speak of.

It is my understanding that once this situation with the condition of the building was brought to the attention of the current Building Official in the codes department, he took the appropriate action; declaring the building dangerous so that appropriate measures could be taken to protect the public.

If you are offended by my remarks and consider them insulting to you, then I suggest you don't post on the blogs here. I have a right to express my viewpoint as well as you do.

I have no tender spot regarding this issue, I am completely aware of the facts concerning this situation.

If you wish to pursue facts and not be consumed by speculation then I would suggest to you that you take your grievances to the codes department and bring your point of contention to the Building Official, Mr. Scotty Farrar. I am sure that he would be more than willing to enlighten you to the details of this case.

The City of Shelbyville is currently pursing all legal channels to recoup the money associated with the cost of the demolition of this building.

-- Posted by Brett Favre on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, at 11:20 PM

Brett Favre

I comment on information I read in the Newspaper which I feel has a responsibility to report truthful, concise information based on facts. You are really straining at a knat and swallowing a camel if you expect me to believe that the rules in effect at the time this building was built are the ones governing actions pertaining to today, nor can you expect me to believe that the present owner is the same person who built the building at that time. Whatever rules were in force at the time this person acquired the building, whatever inspections required to operate businesses (and I know there are requirements that must be met by propery and business owners) and whoever is responsible to execute and perform these inspections to make the public safe TODAY are the only codes I'm interested in. Your American history lesson doesn't play any part in this discussion.

-- Posted by writeattitude on Thu, Jul 9, 2009, at 10:39 AM

If the building at 109 Depot, had such structural problems, including the roof, for years, (this couldn't have happened overnight) how did business after business get an occupancy permits from the City to open their doors to the public?

Does documentation for those occupancy permits show any concerns or warn of deterioration concerns for the past 5-10 years?

Do city records show deterioration from one occpancy inspection to the next?

-- Posted by Lex4990 on Thu, Jul 9, 2009, at 7:03 PM

Writeattitude

I promise to you that I swat knats; and I have never eaten a camel.

Go to City Hall to find your answers to these questions that you ask.

-- Posted by Brett Favre on Thu, Jul 9, 2009, at 10:58 PM