Midland Family’s Loss: 12-Year-Old Anderson Aguilar’s Wrongful Death After a Loop 250 High-Speed Pursuit Crash
You are reading this at a hour when nobody should have to read anything. A twelve-year-old boy who loved Bruno Mars, who slept with a Superman teddy bear, who was just starting out in the sport of boxing his father once dreamed of — fought for nine days in a hospital bed and did not come home. The phone call that told you he was gone is the call that split your life in half. Everything before it is one life. Everything after it is another. We are writing to you in the after, and we are writing to you in the language of the fight — because the fight is what stands between your family and the people who owe you answers.
Here is the first thing you need to hear, and we will say it plainly: Texas law does not let what happened to your son disappear into a criminal file. A man facing murder charges for pursuing a truck full of people at highway speeds until it crashed is a defendant in your civil case too — and the civil case is yours, not the prosecutor’s. The criminal prosecution and your family’s wrongful death claim run on parallel tracks. They do not wait for each other. And in many ways, the criminal case makes your civil case stronger, not weaker.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We handle wrongful death and catastrophic car accident cases in Texas. Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court, and he was a journalist before he was a lawyer — which means he knows how to find the story the evidence tells. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm, the rooms where adjusters and their software decide how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like you. He sat on their side of the table. Now he sits on yours.
This page is the truth about what your family is in — the law, the evidence, the money, the insurance machine, and the clock that is already running on the proof that could win your case.
What Happened on Loop 250: The Incident and Its Legal Meaning
On June 1, 2026, a Ford F-150 carrying five people — including twelve-year-old Anderson Aguilar and eighteen-year-old driver James Baker — was traveling on Loop 250 near North Fairgrounds Road in Midland, Texas. Before the crash, the occupants of that truck called 911. They told the dispatcher they were being followed by another pickup truck. They said they feared for their lives.
Then the truck crashed.
James Baker died at the scene. Anderson and three other passengers suffered life-threatening injuries. Anderson fought for nine days. He died on June 9, 2026.
The man accused of pursuing the F-150 — Roberto Pando III — now faces two murder charges. One for James Baker. One for Anderson.
Here is why those facts matter legally, and not just as a news story. The 911 calls made from the F-150 before impact are the single most important piece of evidence in this case. They were made by people in real terror, in real time, describing a real threat. Texas evidence law recognizes that statements made while a person is under the stress of a startling event — what the law calls excited utterances — carry a reliability that a calm, later-told story does not. Those calls establish three things at once: that the pursuit was real, that the F-150’s occupants were genuinely afraid, and that the pursuit happened before the crash, not after. That causal chain — Pando’s pursuit → the occupants’ fear → the high-speed flight → the crash → Anderson’s death — is the spine of your wrongful death claim, and the 911 calls are the proof that it happened exactly the way the family knows it did.
Loop 250 is a controlled-access highway with posted speed limits of sixty to sixty-five miles per hour through that northern commercial corridor. The North Fairgrounds Road intersection sits near the Midland County fairgrounds complex in a developed area carrying heavy traffic — local commuters mixed with the surge of Permian Basin oilfield operations that have pushed Midland’s population and accident frequency upward for years. At highway speeds, a forced-pursuit collision in this corridor generates catastrophic deceleration forces. The kind of forces that kill a young driver at the scene and leave a twelve-year-old fighting for his life in a hospital bed for nine days.
That is what happened. The legal question is not whether it happened. The legal question is who pays for it — and how much, and from what source.
Texas Wrongful Death and Survival Law: What the Aguilar Family Can Claim
Texas law gives a family in your position two separate legal claims, not one. They are called wrongful death and survival. They travel together, but they compensate different losses, and a defense lawyer is happy if you only know about one of them.
Wrongful death is the family’s claim. It belongs to Anderson’s parents — Gregory and Michelle Aguilar — as statutory beneficiaries. Texas wrongful death law allows parents, a spouse, and children to recover for the death of a family member caused by another’s wrongful act, neglect, carelessness, or default. What you recover is the loss that you — the surviving family — suffered: the loss of Anderson’s companionship and society, mental anguish, the loss of his future earning capacity, and funeral and burial expenses.
Texas wrongful death and survival actions are governed by Chapter 71 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which allows statutory beneficiaries — parents, spouse, and children — to recover for a family member’s death caused by another’s wrongful act, neglect, carelessness, unskillfulness, or default.
Survival is the estate’s claim. It belongs to Anderson’s estate, and it compensates what Anderson himself endured between the crash and his death — those nine days in the hospital. The survival claim includes his conscious pain and suffering, his medical expenses, and the emotional distress he experienced during hospitalization. Nine days is a significant survival window. It is not a footnote. It is a separate damages multiplier, and it stands on its own.
Here is what a generalist often misses: the statute of limitations runs from different dates for these two claims. The survival claim generally runs from the date of injury — June 1, 2026. The wrongful death claim generally runs from the date of death — June 9, 2026. Both are two-year deadlines under Texas law, but the clock starts on different days. That matters because it affects when you must file and how the two claims interrelate.
Texas follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a fifty-one percent bar. That means a claimant’s recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, and they are barred entirely only if they are more than fifty percent at fault. As a twelve-year-old passenger, Anderson has negligible — if any — comparative-fault exposure. He was a child in the back of a truck. The defense cannot meaningfully blame him for what happened.
Texas imposes no general cap on wrongful death or survival damages outside the medical-liability context. The damages are not capped by statute in a motor-vehicle pursuit case. Punitive damages — what Texas calls exemplary damages — are available under Texas law when the defendant’s conduct was grossly negligent or malicious, subject to statutory caps tied to the defendant’s net worth. A man who allegedly pursued a truck at highway speeds until it crashed — conduct serious enough to support two murder charges — is the textbook defendant for punitive exposure.
The 911 Calls: The Most Important Evidence in This Case
The 911 calls made from the F-150 before the crash are the foundation of the civil case. They are contemporaneous, they are recorded, and they were made by people who believed they were in danger. Texas evidence law treats statements made under the stress of a startling event as exceptionally reliable — the reasoning is that a person in the grip of fear does not have the time or the composure to fabricate. Those calls are the proof that the pursuit was real, that it was terrifying, and that it preceded the crash.
The 911 calls also serve a second function that most people miss: they protect the estate of James Baker, the F-150’s driver, from a defense theory that he was negligent in how he drove. The calls establish that Baker was fleeing a genuine threat — that he was not speeding for fun or racing or driving recklessly for its own sake, but trying to escape a dangerous pursuit. Texas law recognizes a necessity defense — sometimes called the emergency doctrine — that can substantially weaken or even bar a claim that a driver was negligent for how he operated a vehicle while fleeing a documented danger. The 911 calls are the documentation. Without them, the defense could argue Baker was just driving too fast. With them, the defense’s argument collapses.
Those recordings exist right now in a dispatch system. How long they survive depends on the agency. Texas 911 recordings are public records, but retention policies vary by agency — some preserve them for years, others cycle them out on shorter schedules. The preservation letter that demands those recordings be saved should go out within days, not months.
Who Is Legally Responsible: The Defendant Map
A wrongful death case is rarely one defendant. In this case, the defendant map has several layers, and each layer is a separate source of potential recovery.
Roberto Pando III is the primary civil defendant. His alleged intentional high-speed pursuit of the F-150, causing the occupants to fear for their lives and ultimately crashing, supports wrongful death liability under Texas law for intentional or grossly negligent conduct. He faces two murder charges. In the civil case, he is the person whose choices set the chain of events in motion.
The owner of Pando’s vehicle — if the truck he was driving belonged to someone other than him — is a discovery target. Under Texas negligent-entrustment law, if that owner knew or should have known of Pando’s propensity for violent or reckless conduct and still gave him the vehicle, that owner carries separate liability. This is not a theory. It is a recognized cause of action, and it can reach a different insurance policy than Pando’s own.
Pando’s auto liability insurer is the first insurance target — but this is where the case gets complicated. A standard auto insurance policy typically contains an intentional-act exclusion that may deny coverage when the at-fault driver’s conduct was intentional rather than negligent. A murder charge makes the insurer’s denial almost automatic. However — and this is where the legal work matters — there is a meaningful distinction between reckless driving and intentional assault. A skilled plaintiff’s lawyer pleads the claim on a reckless-driving theory that may unlock coverage that a murder charge appears to foreclose. The insurer will fight this. The fight is worth having, because the alternative is no coverage at all.
The estate of James Baker — the F-150’s driver — is a secondary theory. Passengers can assert claims against a deceased driver’s estate for how the driver operated the vehicle. But the 911 calls establish a powerful necessity defense: Baker was fleeing a genuine, documented threat. That defense substantially weakens any claim against his estate and may bar it entirely. We mention this theory because it exists, but the 911 calls are the reason it is likely not the path.
The UM/UIM carrier for the F-150’s policy is a critical recovery source. If Pando is uninsured or underinsured — which is likely if his insurer invokes the intentional-act exclusion — uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage on the F-150’s policy may provide recovery for the passengers and the estate. This is coverage the family may not even know exists. It is written into the policy that insured the truck Anderson was riding in, and it is designed exactly for situations where the at-fault driver cannot or will not pay.
A dram-shop defendant — if investigation reveals that Pando was intoxicated and was recently served alcohol at a licensed establishment before the pursuit — is a discovery target. Texas dram-shop law creates liability for a bar or restaurant that over-serves a visibly intoxicated person who then causes harm. A dram-shop defendant is a commercially insured defendant with deeper coverage than an individual driver, and it may be the path to a real recovery if Pando’s insurance denies coverage. This is an investigative question — we do not know yet whether alcohol was involved, but the law creates the avenue, and the investigation must follow it.
Insurance Coverage When the At-Fault Driver Faces Murder Charges
This is the part of the case that a generalist gets wrong, and it is the part that decides whether the family recovers real money or a piece of paper.
The central problem is this: the at-fault driver faces murder charges. His insurance company will read those charges and reach for the intentional-act exclusion in his policy. That exclusion typically says the insurer will not cover damages arising from intentional or criminal acts. The insurer’s argument is straightforward — if Pando intentionally pursued the truck, the crash was not an accident, and the policy does not cover non-accidents.
That argument is powerful, but it is not the end of the case. Here is the counter, and it is the reason you need a lawyer who understands insurance coverage law, not just personal injury law.
First, there is a distinction between intent and recklessness. If Pando intended to pursue the truck — that is, he meant to chase them — but did not specifically intend to cause a crash or death, the argument that his conduct was “intentional” in the policy-exclusion sense is contestable. Reckless driving is a covered occurrence under most auto policies even when it is grossly reckless. The pursuit itself may have been intentional; the crash and its consequences may not have been. That gap between what he meant to do and what happened is where coverage can live.
Second, even if Pando’s insurance denies coverage entirely, the F-150’s own policy likely carries uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage that kicks in when the at-fault driver is uninsured — and a driver whose insurer has denied coverage is functionally uninsured for purposes of UM/UIM recovery. That coverage applies to the passengers in the F-150, including Anderson’s estate. It may be the primary recovery vehicle in this case.
Third, the Texas Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund provides a supplemental recovery source for eligible family members. It is administered by the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, and it can cover medical expenses, funeral costs, counseling, and lost wages for crime victims and their families. It is not a substitute for a civil recovery — the amounts are modest — but it is real money available now, and it does not reduce what the family can recover from the civil case.
Fourth, the multi-victim scenario fragments available insurance. Five people were in that F-150. Two died. Three survived with life-threatening injuries. Every available insurance policy — Pando’s liability, the F-150’s UM/UIM, any excess coverage — must be allocated among five victims’ families. If the families compete against each other for the same insurance pool, each family’s recovery shrinks. If the families coordinate — through counsel, through a global allocation negotiation — each family’s recovery is maximized. This is one of the most important strategic decisions in the case, and it should happen early.
What Anderson’s Nine Days in the Hospital Mean for the Case
Anderson did not die at the scene. He survived for nine days — from June 1 through June 9 — in the hospital. Those nine days are a damages amplifier that a generalist might treat as a footnote and an experienced trial lawyer treats as a separate, significant claim.
The survival claim — the estate’s claim for what Anderson endured between the crash and his death — includes:
Conscious pain and suffering. Anderson was alive, aware, and in a hospital for nine days after a high-speed crash that killed the driver at the scene. The medical records from those nine days document what he went through — the injuries, the interventions, the procedures, the moments of consciousness. Each day of documented suffering is a day of compensable pain.
Medical expenses. Nine days of intensive hospital care after a catastrophic highway-speed crash generates substantial medical bills. In a survival action, those expenses are recoverable through the estate.
Emotional distress. The terror and distress a twelve-year-old experiences in a hospital bed, separated from his family, fighting injuries that ultimately took his life, is compensable. This is not speculation — it is documented in the medical record and in the testimony of the people who were with him.
A forensic economist and a life-care planner would normally project the lifetime cost of care for a catastrophically injured person. In a survival action that ends in death, the cost stream is finite — it runs from the crash to the date of death. But the non-economic damages — the pain, the suffering, the terror — are not capped by the length of the survival window. Nine days of documented conscious suffering in a child is evidence that a Midland County jury will hear and remember.
The medical records from June 1 through June 9 are the evidence of that suffering. They are held by the hospital. They are obtainable through authorization or through appointment of a personal representative of the estate. They should be requested early, before routine hospital retention schedules allow them to be archived or thinned.
The Evidence Clock: What Exists, Who Holds It, How Fast It Dies
Every piece of evidence in this case is on a clock. Some clocks are long. Some are brutally short. The family that calls a lawyer in the first weeks has access to evidence the family that waits six months will never see.
911 call recordings and dispatch logs. These are held by the Midland County 911 dispatch center and potentially by the Midland County Sheriff’s Office or Midland Police Department, which share jurisdiction over incidents along this stretch of Loop 250. They are public records in Texas, but retention policies vary by agency. A preservation letter demanding these recordings be saved should go out within days. Once they are gone, they cannot be reconstructed.
The F-150’s event data recorder — the black box. Modern vehicles record vehicle speed, braking, steering input, and seatbelt status in the seconds before impact. The F-150’s EDR quantifies the crash severity and may show evasive maneuvers Baker took to avoid the pursuing truck. EDR data can be overwritten or lost if the vehicle is salvaged, repaired, or the battery is disconnected. The vehicle must not be released from the tow yard without a preservation order.
The pursuing vehicle’s event data recorder. If Pando’s truck has been impounded by law enforcement — which is likely given the criminal charges — its EDR establishes the pursuing truck’s speed and trajectory, proving the pursuit’s duration and intensity. A civil preservation letter is still necessary even if law enforcement holds the vehicle, because the civil case has different discovery needs.
Cell phone records of all parties. These corroborate the 911 call timing, show communication patterns, and may reveal Pando’s motive or coordination with others. Cell carriers have varying retention windows — some purge data in as little as ninety days. Preservation letters to the carriers must go out promptly.
Crash scene investigation and reconstruction records. The police crash report, scene photographs, skid-mark measurements, and debris-field analysis establish the physical mechanics of the collision. The scene is already gone. These records are held by the investigating agency and must be requested before they are archived or destroyed.
Anderson’s medical records, June 1 through June 9. These document the nine-day survival period, the medical interventions, the conscious pain and suffering, and the prognostic indicators that support the survival damages claim. Hospital retention policies vary. They are obtained through authorization or through appointment of a representative of the estate.
The criminal case file against Pando. Charging documents, witness statements, forensic findings, and any plea or conviction establish civil liability through collateral estoppel or negligence per se. This file is monitored as the criminal case progresses and obtained through public records or subpoena.
Area business surveillance and dashcam footage. Businesses along Loop 250 near the North Fairgrounds Road intersection may have exterior cameras that captured the pursuit or the crash. Commercial CCTV systems typically overwrite within seven to thirty days. This is the fastest-dying evidence in the case. A canvass of area businesses for surveillance footage should happen within the first two weeks — after that, the footage is gone.
The evidence is already decaying. The scene evidence is gone. The business surveillance is overwriting itself. The 911 recordings are sitting in a dispatch system whose retention schedule the family does not control. This is why the preservation letter goes out the day you call — not the day the family feels ready, not the day after the funeral, not the month the criminal case starts moving. The day you call.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook: What They Will Try
Even in a case where the at-fault driver faces murder charges, an insurance adjuster is already working. Here is what to expect — from someone who used to sit on the other side of this table.
Play 1: The friendly “just checking in” call. Within days of the crash, someone will call the family. The tone is warm, sympathetic, concerned. They will ask how everyone is doing. They will ask you to “just tell us what happened” — on a recording engineered to be quoted against you later. Every word you say is being transcribed and compared against the police report, the 911 calls, and the medical records. A single imprecise sentence — “I think he was going pretty fast” or “maybe the driver could have slowed down” — becomes a defense exhibit. The counter: do not give a recorded statement to the at-fault driver’s insurance company. Not now. Not without your lawyer on the line.
Play 2: The fast check with a release attached. A settlement check may arrive quickly, sometimes before the medical bills are final, sometimes before the family has even buried their child. Attached to the back of the check — or in the same envelope — is a release. Signing that release extinguishes every claim the family has, forever, for a fraction of what the case is worth. The adjuster is counting on grief, exhaustion, and financial pressure to make the family sign before they know what they are giving up. The counter: never sign anything from an insurance company without having a lawyer read it first. Not a release, not a medical authorization, not a “goodwill” payment document.
Play 3: Blame the driver. The adjuster may float the idea that James Baker — the F-150’s driver who died at the scene — was responsible for the crash because he was speeding or driving recklessly while fleeing. This is designed to reduce the family’s recovery by allocating fault to the deceased driver. The counter: the 911 calls establish that Baker was fleeing a genuine, documented threat. Texas recognizes a necessity defense that can substantially weaken or bar a claim against a driver who was trying to escape danger. The 911 calls are the answer to this play.
Play 4: The “we need more time” delay. The adjuster will say the claim is “still under investigation” or “we need additional documentation.” This is designed to run the clock toward the statute of limitations. The longer the family waits, the more evidence disappears, the more witnesses forget, and the closer the deadline gets. The counter: a lawyer with a preservation letter and a filing calendar does not let the insurer run the clock.
Play 5: The intentional-act exclusion wall. Pando’s insurer will deny coverage, citing the murder charges and the intentional-act exclusion. The denial letter will sound final. It is not. The counter is the reckless-driving theory — the argument that Pando intended to pursue but did not specifically intend the crash, and that reckless driving is a covered occurrence even when it produces catastrophic results. This is a coverage fight that requires a lawyer who understands insurance law, not just injury law.
Lupe Peña knows these plays because he used to run them. He worked inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software, including the valuation system called Colossus, decide how to deny, delay, and devalue claims. He knows how reserves are set in the first forty-eight hours, before the real injuries are diagnosed. He knows how IME doctors are selected to produce reports that minimize injuries. He knows how surveillance and social-media monitoring are deployed to catch a grieving family in a moment of normalcy and spin it into a defense exhibit. He uses that knowledge for your family now.
What a Case Like This Is Worth in Midland County
We will not give you a number and call it a promise. We will give you the framework, honestly, because the family deserves to understand the math.
The gross damages for a twelve-year-old’s wrongful death with a nine-day survival period and punitive exposure could support a substantial verdict in Midland County. The wrongful death damages — loss of companionship and society, mental anguish, loss of future earning capacity, funeral and burial expenses — are not capped by Texas law outside the medical-liability context. The survival damages — nine days of conscious pain and suffering, medical expenses, emotional distress — are a separate, significant category. The punitive damages — available for gross negligence or malice under Texas law, subject to statutory caps tied to the defendant’s net worth — are warranted given the alleged conduct.
Based on the case profile and comparable Texas wrongful death recoveries, the gross case value range is broad. At the low end — if collectibility is severely constrained and coverage is limited — the practical recovery may fall in the range of $100,000 to $500,000. At the high end — if coverage is unlocked through UM/UIM or a dram-shop defendant, the criminal conviction provides collateral-estoppel leverage, and a Midland County jury returns a substantial verdict — the gross damages could support a value in the range of $2,000,000 to $5,000,000.
But here is the honest truth, and we will not hide it: collectibility is the primary deflator in this case. Pando’s individual auto insurance may invoke intentional-act exclusions given the murder charges. His personal assets are unknown. The recovery may depend on UM/UIM coverage through the F-150’s policy and the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund. The multi-victim scenario — five victims’ families sharing available insurance — further fragments the recovery. A conviction in Pando’s criminal case would collateral-estop liability in the civil case and strengthen settlement leverage against any available insurance, but the absence of a commercial or corporate defendant constrains the practical recovery ceiling.
That is the honest evaluation. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can tell you is this: the firm has recovered $50,000,000-plus in aggregate across its cases, including $2.5 million-plus in a truck-crash recovery and $5 million-plus in a brain-injury settlement. Those results are not your result. They are proof that the firm knows how to find the money when the money exists — and how to tell you honestly when the path is narrower than you hoped.
Multi-Victim Claims: When Five Families Share One Insurance Pool
Five people were in that F-150. Two are dead. Three survived with life-threatening injuries. Every one of those five has a claim, and every claim draws from the same finite insurance pools.
If the families compete — each hiring separate counsel, each filing separately, each demanding the full policy limits from the same UM/UIM carrier — the carrier plays them against each other. It settles with the first family that accepts a low number, depletes the policy, and tells the remaining families there is nothing left. This is a documented insurance strategy, and it works because grief is isolating.
If the families coordinate — through counsel, through a structured allocation negotiation — the available insurance is divided in a way that accounts for each family’s damages, each victim’s injuries, and each claim’s relative strength. A global settlement that allocates the UM/UIM policy among all five victims’ families, with each family’s counsel agreeing to the allocation, maximizes each family’s recovery and prevents the carrier from picking off the weakest claims first.
This is one of the most important strategic decisions in the case. The family that calls a lawyer early — a lawyer who reaches out to the other families’ counsel and opens the coordination conversation — is the family whose recovery is maximized. The family that waits is the family the carrier settles against last, with whatever is left.
The First 72 Hours: What Families Should Do Now
If you are reading this in the days or weeks after Anderson’s death, here is the practical roadmap. It is not legal advice for your specific case — it is the general framework that applies to a family in your position, and it is the framework we follow when we are retained.
Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance company. Not Pando’s insurer. Not the F-150’s insurer. Not anyone. Every word is being recorded and compared against the evidence. Say nothing on the record until you have a lawyer on the phone.
Do not sign anything from an insurance company. Not a release. Not a medical authorization. Not a “goodwill” payment form. If someone from an insurance company sends you a document, do not sign it. Bring it to a lawyer.
Do not post about the case on social media. Insurance companies monitor social media. A photograph of a family gathering, a post about going back to work, a message thanking friends for support — any of these can be screenshotted and used to argue the family is not suffering as much as they claim. Grief is private. Keep it private.
Do preserve everything you have. Text messages from Anderson. Photographs from the hospital. The GoFundMe page and its comments. Every piece of paper from the hospital, the funeral home, the police. Put it in one place. Do not throw anything away.
Do call a lawyer. Not next month. Not after the funeral. Not after the criminal case starts. Now. The evidence preservation clock is running. The 911 recordings, the business surveillance footage, the EDR data, the cell phone records — every one of them is on a timer, and the timer started the day of the crash. The preservation letter that freezes that evidence goes out the day you call.
Do understand the GoFundMe. The GoFundMe created to support the family is a generous act by the community. But the family should understand that GoFundMe funds may affect eligibility for certain need-based assistance, and the existence of a public fundraiser is something the defense may try to use. Talk to a lawyer about how to structure the receipt and use of those funds.
Do ask about the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund. The Texas Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund, administered by the Office of the Attorney General, provides financial assistance to crime victims and their families. It can cover medical expenses, funeral costs, counseling, and lost wages. It is available now. It does not reduce the family’s civil recovery. A lawyer can help the family apply.
Why the Criminal Case Strengthens the Civil Case
A common fear we hear from families is this: “The district attorney is prosecuting the man who killed my child. Does that mean I have to wait? Will my civil case interfere with the criminal case?”
The answer is no — and the criminal case is an asset, not an obstacle.
The criminal prosecution and the civil wrongful death case proceed on parallel tracks. They do not wait for each other. The civil case can be filed and prosecuted while the criminal case is ongoing. A civil filing does not interfere with criminal proceedings.
More importantly, a criminal conviction in the Pando case would provide powerful leverage in the civil case. Under Texas law, a criminal conviction can operate as collateral estoppel — meaning the fact of the conviction establishes the defendant’s liability in the civil case, and the civil case shifts entirely to damages. The family no longer has to prove Pando caused the crash. The criminal court already found it. The civil case becomes about how much, not whether.
Even without a conviction — even if the criminal case results in a plea, a reduced charge, or an acquittal — the evidence gathered in the criminal investigation is discoverable in the civil case. Witness statements, forensic findings, the crash reconstruction, the cell phone data — all of it is potentially available to the civil lawyer through discovery or public records requests. The criminal investigation is, in effect, a free investigation of the civil case, paid for by the state.
The family does not control the criminal case. The district attorney does. But the family’s civil lawyer monitors the criminal case closely — attends hearings, requests filings, tracks the evidence — and uses what the criminal investigation uncovers to build the civil case.
How We Build a Wrongful Death Case: The Proof Story
Here is how a case like this is actually built, from the day the family calls to the day the demand letter goes out.
Week one: the preservation letter. The day we are retained, a preservation and spoliation letter goes out to every entity that holds evidence — the Midland County 911 dispatch center, the Midland Police Department, the Midland County Sheriff’s Office, the tow yard holding the F-150, Pando’s insurance carrier, the F-150’s insurance carrier, the cell phone carriers, and every business within sight of the crash scene on Loop 250. That letter tells them, in writing, to freeze every piece of evidence — the 911 recordings, the dispatch logs, the EDR data, the surveillance footage, the phone records, the crash report. If any of those entities destroys evidence after receiving that letter, the law allows the jury to assume the destroyed evidence was as bad as the plaintiff says it was.
Weeks one through four: the records demand. We request the police crash report, the scene photographs, the skid-mark measurements, the debris-field analysis, the hospital records from June 1 through June 9, Anderson’s medical records, the GoFundMe records, and the criminal case file as it develops. We request Pando’s auto policy declarations and the F-150’s policy declarations, including UM/UIM coverage. We open the insurance coverage analysis — does Pando’s policy cover this, or does the intentional-act exclusion apply? Is the F-150’s UM/UIM coverage available, and in what amount?
Weeks four through twelve: the investigation. We canvass the area businesses along Loop 250 near North Fairgrounds Road for surveillance footage. We request the cell phone records of all parties and the cell-site data that shows where Pando’s phone was during the pursuit. We investigate whether alcohol was involved — whether Pando was recently served at a licensed establishment before the pursuit, which would open a dram-shop claim against a commercially insured defendant.
Months three through six: the experts. We retain a crash reconstructionist to quantify the pursuit’s speed and the impact forces — to translate the physics of what happened on Loop 250 into numbers a jury can understand. We retain a forensic economist for Anderson’s lost earning capacity — the income a twelve-year-old boy would have earned over a lifetime, reduced to present value. We retain a life-care planner for the surviving passengers’ catastrophic injuries — the future medical costs, the rehabilitation, the ongoing care.
Months six through twelve: the discovery and depositions. We take the depositions of the investigating officers, the witnesses, the surviving passengers, and — if he is available and not asserting his Fifth Amendment right — Pando himself. We demand the insurance coverage documents, the vehicle maintenance records, the cell phone data. We build the timeline minute by minute — from the moment the pursuit started to the moment Anderson’s heart stopped.
The demand letter. When the evidence is assembled, the experts have their numbers, and the coverage picture is clear, the demand letter goes out. It tells the insurance company what happened, what it cost, what the law says, and what number makes the case go away. If the insurer refuses to pay what the case is worth, we file suit and let a Midland County jury decide.
That is the process. It takes time. It takes expertise. And it starts the day you call.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can we file a wrongful death lawsuit if the driver is already facing criminal murder charges?
Yes. The criminal case and the civil wrongful death case are separate legal proceedings that run on parallel tracks. The criminal case is brought by the Midland County District Attorney on behalf of the State of Texas. The civil case is brought by Anderson’s family on behalf of the family and the estate. They do not wait for each other. A criminal conviction actually strengthens the civil case by establishing the defendant’s liability through collateral estoppel — meaning the civil case shifts from proving fault to proving damages. The family does not need to wait for the criminal case to finish before filing a civil claim.
How long do we have to file a wrongful death claim in Texas?
Texas law generally gives the family two years from the date of death to file a wrongful death claim. Anderson died on June 9, 2026, so the wrongful death limitations period generally runs through June 9, 2028. The survival claim — the estate’s claim for Anderson’s suffering between the June 1 crash and his June 9 death — generally runs from the date of injury, June 1, 2026. These deadlines are general rules and can be affected by specific circumstances, so the family should confirm the exact filing deadline with a lawyer as early as possible. Waiting is the single most common way a valid claim becomes a lost claim.
What if the at-fault driver’s insurance denies coverage because of the murder charges?
This is a real risk and a central issue in the case. Pando’s auto insurance carrier may invoke an intentional-act exclusion, arguing that his conduct was intentional rather than accidental. However, this denial is not necessarily the end of the case. There is a legal distinction between intent to pursue and intent to cause a crash — reckless driving may be a covered occurrence even when it produces catastrophic results. Additionally, the F-150’s own uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage may provide recovery for the passengers and the estate if Pando’s coverage is denied. The Texas Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund provides another avenue. A lawyer who understands insurance coverage law — not just personal injury law — is essential to navigate this issue.
Does Anderson’s nine days in the hospital affect the case value?
Yes — significantly. The survival claim, which belongs to Anderson’s estate, compensates what Anderson endured between the crash and his death. Nine days of documented conscious pain and suffering, medical expenses, and emotional distress is a substantial damages category that stands alongside the wrongful death claim. The medical records from June 1 through June 9 are the evidence of that suffering. A twelve-year-old child who fought for nine days in a hospital before dying generates powerful jury sympathy, and the survival damages are not capped by the length of the survival window. The nine days are not a footnote. They are a separate, significant claim.
Can the other passengers’ families affect our recovery?
Yes. Five people were in the F-150. Two died. Three survived with life-threatening injuries. Every available insurance policy — Pando’s liability coverage, the F-150’s UM/UIM coverage, any excess coverage — must be allocated among all five victims’ families. If the families compete, each family’s recovery shrinks. If the families coordinate through counsel — through a structured allocation negotiation — each family’s recovery is maximized. Early coordination among the families’ lawyers is one of the most important strategic decisions in the case. The family that calls a lawyer early is the family whose interests are represented in that allocation.
What if the at-fault driver has no insurance or not enough?
If Pando is uninsured or his coverage is denied, the F-150’s uninsured or underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage may provide recovery for the passengers and the estate. This is coverage written into the policy that insured the truck Anderson was riding in, and it is designed for exactly this situation. The family may also apply to the Texas Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund, which provides financial assistance for medical expenses, funeral costs, counseling, and lost wages for crime victims and their families. If investigation reveals that Pando was intoxicated and recently served at a licensed establishment, a Texas dram-shop claim against that establishment may open a path to a commercially insured defendant with deeper coverage.
Will the criminal case delay our civil lawsuit?
No. The criminal and civil cases proceed independently. The civil case can be filed and prosecuted while the criminal case is ongoing. The family’s civil lawyer monitors the criminal case — attends hearings, requests filings, tracks the evidence — and uses what the criminal investigation uncovers to build the civil case. The criminal investigation is, in effect, a free investigation of the civil case, paid for by the state. If anything, the criminal case is an asset to the civil case, not a delay.
What should we do about the GoFundMe money?
The GoFundMe created to support the family is a generous act by the community, and the funds can help with immediate expenses. However, the family should understand two things. First, GoFundMe funds may affect eligibility for certain need-based assistance programs. Second, the existence of a public fundraiser is something the defense may try to use to argue the family has been compensated. Talk to a lawyer about how to structure the receipt and use of those funds — how they are received, how they are accounted for, and how they interact with the civil claim. This is a conversation to have early, not after the funds have been spent.
Can we sue the driver of the truck Anderson was riding in?
Texas law allows passengers to assert claims against a driver’s estate for negligent operation of a vehicle. In this case, however, the 911 calls establish a powerful necessity defense — the driver, James Baker, was fleeing a genuine, documented threat. That defense substantially weakens any claim against his estate and may bar it entirely. The 911 calls are the reason this theory is likely not the path. The primary civil defendant is Roberto Pando III, whose alleged pursuit caused the crash.
How do we preserve the 911 call recordings?
The 911 recordings are held by the Midland County 911 dispatch center and potentially by the Midland Police Department or the Midland County Sheriff’s Office, which share jurisdiction over incidents along Loop 250. Texas 911 recordings are public records, but retention policies vary by agency — some preserve them for years, others cycle them out on shorter schedules. A preservation letter demanding those recordings be saved should go out within days of the crash. Once they are gone, they cannot be reconstructed. This is one of the reasons the preservation letter goes out the day you call a lawyer.
Our Firm, Your Fight
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a trial firm that takes Texas cases. We are based in Houston, with offices in Austin and Beaumont, and we handle wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases across the state — including in Midland and Midland County.
Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in Texas courtrooms, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — he trained to find the story the evidence tells, and he brought that instinct into the courtroom. He is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the Houston Bar Association. He is lead counsel in the active $10 million-plus Bermudez v. Pi Kappa Phi / University of Houston hazing lawsuit in Harris County. He is Italian-American, born in New York, raised in Houston, and he has spent his career fighting for people who were failed by someone else’s choices.
Lupe Peña is a former insurance-defense attorney. He worked inside a national defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their valuation software decide how to deny, delay, and devalue claims. He knows how reserves are set in the first forty-eight hours. He knows how IME doctors are chosen. He knows how surveillance and social-media monitoring are deployed. He knows because he used to do it. Now he uses that knowledge for the families the insurance machine was built to wear down. Lupe is a third-generation Texan, fluent in Spanish, and he conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
We work on contingency. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case. Our fee is 33.33 percent if the case resolves before trial, 40 percent if it goes to trial. The consultation is free. The first call costs you nothing. The first letter — the preservation letter that freezes the evidence before it disappears — goes out the day you hire us.
If your family is facing what the Aguilar family is facing — the loss of a child, the criminal case on the news, the insurance adjuster on the phone, the evidence on a clock — call us. We handle wrongful death cases. We handle car accident cases. We handle insurance claim disputes. We know how to find the money when the money is hidden behind an intentional-act exclusion or a shell entity or an adjuster’s delay. And we will tell you honestly if the path is narrower than you hoped — because an honest lawyer is the only kind worth having when the stakes are this high.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
We serve families fully in English and in Spanish. Hablamos Español. Lupe conducts consultations in Spanish without an interpreter, and our staff is bilingual.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911 — that is 1-888-288-9911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, a live person answers — not an answering service.
The evidence is already decaying. The 911 recordings are in a dispatch system. The business surveillance is overwriting itself. The EDR data is in a tow yard. The cell phone records are on a carrier’s purge schedule. Every day that passes is a day the proof gets harder to find. The day you call is the day the clock starts working for your family instead of against them.