A Freeborn County judge was scheduled to hear from insurance companies and the City of Albert Lea in regard to the city’s order to demolish the old Farmland plant this morning.

Thursday, March 28, 2002

A Freeborn County judge was scheduled to hear from insurance companies and the City of Albert Lea in regard to the city’s order to demolish the old Farmland plant this morning. Judge James Broberg will deliver his decision as early as Friday.

In the hearing, attorneys for the insurers and City Attorney Steve Schwab were to present their positions for 15 minutes each.

The insurers are requesting a court order to temporarily freeze the demolition order, asserting it would cause &uot;irreparable injury.&uot;

Farmland has claimed $86 million for the damage inflicted by a fire on July 8 last year. But the insurance companies are offering only about $25 million, based on their investigation, which concluded the plant could be restored.

The city order sent on March 13 supports Farmland’s contention that the fire caused a total loss.

According to the insurers, only 58,075 square feet of the total 611,211 square-foot facility needs to be replaced, while the city points out much of the plant undamaged directly by the fire was damaged by smoke and water. The city order also says, &uot;All remaining structures are in need of substantial and cost-prohibitive repair because of numerous fire and building code violations,&uot; and, &uot;The entire plant is beyond the possibility of economic repair.&uot;

A main focus of the judgment is likely to be whether the insurance companies are even eligible to intervene on the city’s demolition order.

Minnesota statutes allow local governments to remove hazardous buildings by issuing an order. Parties who receive the orders can file a contest against the order within 20 days.

The issue is whether insurers are considered a party who can contest an order.

The law says, &uot;The orders shall be served upon the owner of record, or the owner’s agent if an agent is in charge of the building or the property, and upon the occupying tenant, if there is one, and upon all lien holders of record.&uot;

The city would insist that the insurance companies do not have standing under the law, and thus the contest should be discarded.

&uot;A strict reading of the statute would clearly indicate that your client does not have the right to be an interested party or served in this matter,&uot; City Attorney Steve Schwab wrote to the counsel of the insurers.

On the other hand, the insurers claim the court needs to assess the harm they would suffer if the injunction order were denied compared to the harm the city would have if the demolition order were stalled.