Ector County Wrongful Death After a Disregarded Stop Sign: Two Lives Lost at Treva and Greenlee in Odessa
The call came on a Wednesday evening in April. Someone in your family was driving west on Treva Avenue in Odessa, doing what people here do every day — moving through the roads that connect this city, running an errand, heading home. They had the right of way. A stop sign on Greenlee Avenue was supposed to stop the traffic crossing their path. It did not. By the time Texas Department of Public Safety troopers reached the intersection, two men from Odessa were gone — pronounced dead at the scene. The driver who ran the stop sign walked away with minor injuries and a ride to Medical Center Hospital.
If you are reading this page, you are probably one of the people that call reached. You may be sitting at a kitchen table in Odessa, or maybe Midland, at an hour when the rest of the Permian Basin is asleep, trying to understand what just happened to your family and what comes next. We wrote this page for you. Not to sell you anything — to arm you. Because the decisions made in the next few weeks will determine whether the truth of what happened at that intersection is preserved or lost, and whether the people accountable for two deaths are held fully responsible or partially responsible.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We handle wrongful death cases across Texas, including the Midland-Odessa corridor and every county in the Permian Basin. Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in Texas courtrooms. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims from people exactly like you — and now uses that knowledge for injured families. We work on contingency. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free, and it is confidential. And we speak Spanish — hablamos Español — because this community is ours too.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But every word below is written by a trial team that knows exactly how these cases are built, how the insurance industry fights them, and what the evidence looks like before it disappears.
How a Disregarded Stop Sign Creates Negligence Per Se Under Texas Law
When a driver runs a stop sign in Texas and someone dies as a result, the law does not treat it as a simple accident. It treats it as a violation of a statute written to protect the public — and that violation creates a powerful legal presumption called negligence per se.
Here is how it works in plain language. Texas traffic law requires drivers to stop at stop signs. The purpose of that requirement is to prevent exactly what happened here: a vehicle entering a through-road without yielding, colliding with traffic that has the right of way. When the at-fault driver disregarded the stop sign on Greenlee Avenue, they violated that statute. Under the doctrine of negligence per se, that violation creates a presumption that the driver was negligent. The burden shifts to the at-fault driver to rebut that presumption — to prove they were not negligent despite breaking the law. In a case where DPS’s own preliminary investigation identifies the stop-sign disregard as the cause, rebutting that presumption is a steep climb.
This matters enormously for the families. In an ordinary negligence case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving every element — duty, breach, causation, damages. In a negligence per se case, the statutory violation establishes breach as a matter of law. The Acura had the right of way on Treva Avenue. The stop sign on Greenlee Avenue was the at-fault driver’s to obey. The failure to stop is not a judgment call or a close question. It is a bright-line rule, and DPS has already identified the violation in its preliminary findings.
But negligence per se is the floor, not the ceiling. The at-fault driver also faces ordinary negligence claims — failure to maintain proper lookout, failure to yield the right of way, failure to control speed. And if discovery reveals that the stop-sign disregard was not merely careless but reckless — if the driver was texting, speeding through the intersection, or impaired — the case escalates to gross negligence, which opens the door to punitive damages under Texas law. We will come back to that.
For now, the critical point is this: the stop-sign violation is the liability foundation. It is strong, it is documented by DPS, and it shifts the burden to the at-fault driver. That foundation is why this case has clear liability — and why the fight will be about evidence, insurance coverage, and damages, not about who was at fault.
Who Can Be Held Responsible: The Defendant Map
The At-Fault Driver
The primary defendant is the driver who disregarded the stop sign. The negligence per se doctrine and the ordinary negligence claims — failure to yield, failure to maintain proper lookout, failure to control speed — all run against this driver. The at-fault driver’s auto liability insurance is the first layer of recovery.
The Vehicle Owner (If Different From the Driver)
If the 2021 Mitsubishi Outlander is registered to someone other than the at-fault driver — a parent, a family member, a friend — Texas law may impose liability on that owner under a negligent entrustment theory. Negligent entrustment means the owner knew or should have known that the driver was incompetent, unlicensed, reckless, or unfit to operate the vehicle, and they handed over the keys anyway. This is not a minor theory. It can open a separate insurance policy with separate limits, and in a dual-fatality case where the at-fault driver’s own policy may be exhausted by two wrongful death claims, every additional source of coverage matters.
The vehicle ownership question is one of the first things to investigate. Texas vehicle registration records and the DPS crash report will identify the registered owner. If it is a different person or entity from the driver, the negligent entrustment investigation begins immediately.
The At-Fault Driver’s Auto Liability Insurer
The at-fault driver’s liability insurer is the primary source of recovery. Texas requires minimum liability coverage of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per incident (with $25,000 for property damage), but many drivers carry higher limits. The question is whether the at-fault driver’s limits are sufficient to compensate two wrongful deaths — and in nearly every dual-fatality case, they are not.
The Decedents’ Own Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Carriers
This is the bridge that most families do not know exists. If the at-fault driver’s liability coverage is insufficient to fully compensate two deaths — and it almost never is — the decedents’ own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) policies become a critical recovery source. Texas Insurance Code provisions govern UM/UIM coverage, and these claims stack on top of the at-fault driver’s liability coverage. We cover this in detail below.
Potential Gross Negligence and Punitive Damages
If discovery reveals that the at-fault driver was impaired, distracted (cell phone use), or traveling at excessive speed through the intersection, the stop-sign disregard escalates from ordinary negligence to gross negligence — a conscious indifference to the safety of others. Under Texas law, gross negligence opens the door to punitive (exemplary) damages, which require clear and convincing evidence. Punitive damages are not capped in standard motor-vehicle wrongful death cases in Texas. This is a significant leverage point, and it is exactly why the evidence preservation steps in the next section are so urgent.
Insurance Coverage When Two Deaths Exceed the At-Fault Driver’s Policy
Here is the hard truth that most families learn too late: the at-fault driver’s insurance may be a fraction of what two wrongful deaths are worth. A 25-year-old driver in a 2021 Mitsubishi Outlander likely carries standard policy limits. Texas’s legal minimum is $30,000 per person and $60,000 per incident. Many drivers carry more — $50,000, $100,000, or $250,000 per person — but even $250,000 per person is a fraction of the value of a 33-year-old’s lost earning capacity, let alone two deaths.
When the at-fault driver’s limits are insufficient, three things happen. First, the liability carrier pays its limits (or is forced to, through a Stowers demand). Second, the families turn to the decedents’ own UM/UIM policies to bridge the gap. Third, if gross negligence is proven and a Stowers demand was properly executed, the carrier may face bad-faith exposure above its policy limits — meaning the insurer itself could owe the excess.
The Insurance Ladder
Imagine the available coverage as a ladder. Each rung is a source of recovery:
-
At-fault driver’s liability policy — the first rung. Pays up to its per-person and per-incident limits. Two deaths means the per-incident cap is the ceiling, and two families share it.
-
Vehicle owner’s policy (if different from driver) — if the Mitsubishi is owned by someone else, their insurance may provide an additional layer, and the negligent entrustment claim may trigger it.
-
Decedents’ UM/UIM policies — the critical bridge. If the at-fault driver’s limits are less than the UM/UIM limits on the decedents’ own auto policies, the UM/UIM carrier pays the difference up to its limits. Texas law permits UM/UIM recovery when the at-fault driver is underinsured.
-
Umbrella or excess policies — if the at-fault driver, the vehicle owner, or the decedents carried umbrella coverage, it sits above the primary layers and can add $1 million or more to the recovery stack.
-
Bad-faith exposure above limits — if a Stowers demand is properly made and the carrier refuses to settle within limits, the carrier can be liable for the full excess verdict, even if it exceeds the policy by millions.
The Stowers Doctrine: The Lever Most People Never Heard Of
Texas has a unique legal doctrine called the Stowers doctrine, named after a century-old Texas Supreme Court case. In plain terms: when liability is reasonably clear and the damages exceed the at-fault driver’s policy limits, the at-fault driver’s insurance company has a duty to accept a reasonable settlement offer within those limits. If the carrier refuses and the case goes to trial — and the jury awards more than the policy limits — the carrier can be forced to pay the entire excess, not just the policy amount.
In a case like this one — where DPS has already identified the stop-sign violation, where two deaths far exceed any standard policy, and where liability is strong — a properly drafted Stowers demand puts the carrier in an impossible position. Settle within limits and close the case. Or roll the dice at trial and face bad-faith exposure that could dwarf the policy.
Lupe Peña knows this doctrine from the inside. As a former insurance-defense attorney, he sat in the rooms where carriers decided whether to accept or reject Stowers demands. He knows how the carrier evaluates the risk, how the reserve is set, and what makes a demand strong enough to force a settlement. That knowledge now works for the families, not the carrier.
What a Dual-Fatality Case Is Worth in Ector County
We will not pretend to put a precise dollar figure on two lives. No honest lawyer can value a case without seeing the medical records, the autopsy reports, the earnings history, the beneficiary structure, and the insurance policies. But we can tell you what the damages categories are and how they are built — because that is the only honest way to talk about case value.
Economic Damages
For the 33-year-old decedent: lost earning capacity over his remaining working life — potentially 30 or more years. A forensic economist projects this using worklife expectancy tables, the decedent’s occupation and earnings history, and fringe benefits (health insurance, retirement contributions, paid leave — which federal data shows run roughly 30% on top of wages for private-sector workers). The present value of that earnings stream, reduced by personal consumption (the share the decedent would have spent on themselves rather than the family), is the core economic loss. Depending on occupation and earnings, this figure alone can exceed $1.5 to $2.5 million or more.
For the 62-year-old decedent: lost earning capacity reflecting his remaining working years. The economic loss is shorter in duration but still meaningful, particularly in the Permian Basin economy where many workers remain productive well past traditional retirement age.
Both estates also recover funeral and burial expenses, and any pre-death medical costs (minimal if death was at the scene, but formally part of the claim).
Non-Economic Damages
Mental anguish of the beneficiaries. Loss of companionship and society. Loss of advice and counsel. The loss of a spouse, a parent, a child. These damages have no receipt and no formula — but they are real, they are compensable, and in Texas, they are not capped in standard motor-vehicle wrongful death cases. An Ector County jury decides what they are worth, and that jury will be twelve people from this community — people who drive these same roads, who know what a stop sign means, and who understand what it costs a family to lose someone.
Punitive Damages (If Gross Negligence Is Proven)
If the evidence shows the at-fault driver was impaired, texting, or speeding through the intersection — if the stop-sign disregard was not mere carelessness but conscious indifference — punitive damages are available under Texas law. Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence, a higher standard than ordinary negligence. But when they apply, they are not capped in standard motor-vehicle wrongful death cases, and they can dramatically increase the value and the settlement leverage of the case.
Case Value Range
Based on the verified analysis of this incident — two wrongful deaths with clear liability from a disregarded stop sign — the case value range runs from approximately $750,000 on the low end to $5,000,000 or more on the high end. The low end assumes limited insurance coverage, no gross negligence, and modest economic losses. The high end assumes significant earning capacity, UM/UIM recovery, and gross negligence evidence that opens punitive damages and creates Stowers leverage above policy limits.
The primary deflator is collectibility. A verdict is only worth what can be collected. If the at-fault driver carries $30,000 per person and the decedents have no UM/UIM coverage, the recovery may be limited. If the at-fault driver carries higher limits, the vehicle owner has separate coverage, the decedents carry UM/UIM, and gross negligence evidence creates Stowers bad-faith exposure — the recovery can reach well into the millions.
This is why mapping the full insurance stack is the first economic task in the case. Our car accident practice page covers the general framework, but in a dual-fatality case the coverage analysis is far more complex and far more consequential.
How a Wrongful Death Case Is Actually Built
Here is how a case like this moves from the intersection to resolution. Not a summary — the actual walk.
Week One: The preservation letters go out. One to the at-fault driver’s insurance company, demanding that the 2021 Mitsubishi Outlander be secured and the EDR data be preserved. One to the at-fault driver’s cellular carrier, demanding that call and data records be frozen. One to Medical Center Hospital, demanding that the at-fault driver’s admission records and toxicology be preserved. One to the at-fault driver (or their attorney), demanding that no evidence be destroyed. One to any nearby businesses or residences that may have surveillance footage of the intersection. Each letter is a legal demand that creates consequences if the evidence is destroyed after receipt.
Weeks Two Through Four: The DPS CR-3 crash report is obtained and reviewed. The full DPS investigation file is requested, including all supplemental reports, witness statements, and chemical test results. Vehicle ownership records are pulled to determine whether the Mitsubishi is registered to the at-fault driver or to someone else — which determines whether a negligent entrustment claim exists. All insurance policies are identified — the at-fault driver’s liability policy, the vehicle owner’s policy (if different), the decedents’ own UM/UIM policies, and any umbrella or excess coverage.
Months One Through Three: The EDR data is downloaded from both vehicles by a qualified crash-data-retrieval technician. The 2021 Mitsubishi’s EDR data is the priority — it will show pre-crash speed, braking, throttle, and whether the driver attempted to avoid the collision. The 1999 Acura’s data, while limited, is extracted to confirm the Acura’s speed and any evasive maneuver. A reconstruction engineer may be retained to build the crash sequence from the EDR data, the scene measurements, and the vehicle damage profiles.
The at-fault driver’s cell phone records are subpoenaed. If the records show active phone use at the time of the crash — a call, a text, a data session — the gross negligence theory is activated and the punitive damages analysis begins. The at-fault driver’s toxicology results from Medical Center Hospital or DPS are obtained. If impairment is documented, the case escalates.
The personal representative of each decedent’s estate is identified and, if necessary, appointed by the probate court. This is the person Texas law authorizes to bring the survival claim on behalf of the estate. The wrongful death beneficiaries — spouse, children, parents — are identified for each decedent. Each has an independent claim.
Months Three Through Six: Discovery begins if a lawsuit has been filed. The at-fault driver is deposed. The investigating DPS trooper is deposed. Witnesses are interviewed under oath. The cell phone records are examined by a digital forensics expert. The EDR data is analyzed by the reconstruction engineer. The at-fault driver’s driving record, criminal history, and any prior incidents are investigated. The insurance policies are produced and analyzed for every available layer of coverage.
A forensic economist is retained to project the lost earning capacity for each decedent. The economist uses worklife expectancy tables, the decedent’s occupation and earnings history, fringe-benefit data, and personal consumption deductions to build the economic loss to present value. For the 33-year-old, this projection spans decades. For the 62-year-old, it is shorter but still significant.
A life-care planner may be retained if there are surviving family members who depended on the decedent for care, household services, or support — the value of which is recoverable as part of the wrongful death damages.
Months Six Through Twelve: The case is positioned for resolution. If the evidence supports gross negligence and the damages clearly exceed the at-fault driver’s policy limits, a Stowers demand is prepared and served on the liability carrier. The demand sets a deadline for the carrier to tender its limits. If the carrier accepts, the liability claim is resolved and the families pursue UM/UIM recovery. If the carrier rejects and the case proceeds to trial, the carrier faces bad-faith exposure for any verdict above its limits.
If the case goes to trial, it will be filed in Ector County. The jury will be twelve people from this community. The evidence — the EDR data, the cell phone records, the toxicology results, the reconstruction, the economist’s projections — will be presented through expert testimony. The defense will attempt to minimize damages, dispute causation, and shift blame. The prosecution of the case is the work of countering each defense move with the evidence preserved in those first critical weeks.
Ector County Venue and Jury Pool: Where This Case Lives
A wrongful death lawsuit arising from this crash would be filed in Ector County. Texas venue rules generally allow filing in the county where the injury occurred, where the defendant resides, or where the defendant does business. For this crash, Ector County is the natural venue — the crash happened at Treva and Greenlee in Ector County, and the parties are Odessa residents.
Ector County sits in the Permian Basin, with Odessa as its county seat and the Midland-Odessa metropolitan area serving as the region’s energy-industry hub. The jury pool here is conservative, working-class, and oilfield-heavy. These are people who drive these roads every day. They know what a stop sign means. They understand the Permian Basin traffic — the oilfield trucks, the commuter traffic, the long shifts and the fatigue. They tend to be fair but not extravagant on damages awards. They will not hand out a lottery-ticket verdict. But they will hold a driver accountable who ran a stop sign and killed two people — especially if the evidence shows the violation was reckless, not merely careless.
The venue decision matters because it shapes the jury. A trial in Ector County means twelve people from this community deciding what two lives were worth. The defense knows this. The insurance carrier knows this. And the prospect of twelve Odessa residents hearing that a driver ran a stop sign and killed two of their neighbors — that is what makes a Stowers demand credible. The carrier knows that an Ector County jury is not going to let a stop-sign violation slide.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long do I have to file a wrongful death lawsuit in Texas?
Texas generally imposes a two-year statute of limitations on wrongful death claims, running from the date of death. Survival claims are subject to the same two-year deadline. This is not a suggestion — it is a hard deadline. Miss it and the case is barred, no matter how strong the evidence. There are limited tolling exceptions (for minors, for certain disabilities), but the general rule is two years from the date of the crash. In this case, the filing window runs from April 8, 2026. Waiting to see what the insurance company will offer is how families lose their rights. The evidence preservation timeline is even shorter — measured in days and weeks, not years.
What is negligence per se, and why does it matter for a stop sign crash?
Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that says when someone violates a statute designed to protect the public, and that violation causes harm, the violation creates a presumption of negligence. Running a stop sign is a violation of Texas traffic law. The statute is designed to prevent intersection collisions — exactly what happened here. Under negligence per se, the burden shifts to the at-fault driver to prove they were not negligent despite breaking the law. This is a much stronger position for the families than having to prove negligence from scratch.
What happens when the at-fault driver’s insurance is not enough for two deaths?
This is the most common problem in dual-fatality cases. The at-fault driver’s liability policy has per-person and per-incident caps. Two deaths may exhaust those caps at a fraction of the claims’ value. The bridge is the decedents’ own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. If the at-fault driver’s limits are less than the UM/UIM limits on the decedents’ own auto policies, the UM/UIM carrier pays the difference. Additional sources include the vehicle owner’s policy (if different from the driver), umbrella or excess policies, and — if a Stowers demand was properly executed and rejected — the at-fault driver’s carrier may face bad-faith exposure for the full excess verdict above its limits.
Can the family still recover if the at-fault driver was drunk or on drugs?
Yes — and the recovery may be significantly higher. If the at-fault driver was impaired, the case escalates from ordinary negligence to gross negligence. Under Texas law, gross negligence — a conscious indifference to the safety of others — opens the door to punitive damages. Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence, a higher standard than ordinary negligence. But they are not capped in standard motor-vehicle wrongful death cases in Texas. Impairment also creates a potential criminal case (intoxication manslaughter) alongside the civil case, which adds additional leverage. The toxicology results from Medical Center Hospital or DPS are the key evidence — and they must be subpoenaed before they are purged.
What is the difference between a wrongful death claim and a survival claim?
A wrongful death claim belongs to the surviving family members — spouse, children, and parents — and compensates them for their losses: mental anguish, lost financial support, loss of companionship, and loss of inheritance. A survival claim belongs to the decedent’s estate and carries the claim the decedent would have had if they had survived — pain and suffering between injury and death, medical expenses, and funeral costs. The damages pass through the estate to the heirs. Both claims must be pursued separately. Failing to pursue the survival claim leaves money on the table. Failing to pursue the wrongful death claim leaves the family’s losses uncompensated.
Should I talk to the at-fault driver’s insurance company?
No. The adjuster’s job is to close the claim for as little money as possible. Every call is recorded. Every word you say is being evaluated for how it can be used to reduce the value of your claim. You have no legal obligation to give a recorded statement to the at-fault driver’s insurer. Refer all communication to an attorney. The adjuster is not your advocate — they are a professional trained to minimize payouts. This video covers what not to say to an insurance adjuster in specific detail.
What if the at-fault driver was texting or on the phone?
Cell phone use at the time of a stop-sign violation is powerful evidence of both ordinary negligence (failure to maintain proper lookout) and gross negligence (conscious indifference to the safety of others). If the at-fault driver was texting, browsing, or on a call when they ran the stop sign, the case transforms — punitive damages become available, and the Stowers leverage above the at-fault driver’s policy limits increases dramatically. Cell phone records must be subpoenaed immediately, because carrier auto-purge cycles can destroy call and data usage records within 30 to 90 days.
How much is a wrongful death case worth in Texas?
No honest lawyer can give a specific dollar figure without reviewing the medical records, autopsy, earnings history, beneficiary structure, and insurance policies. In this case — two wrongful deaths with clear liability from a disregarded stop sign — the verified analysis puts the range from approximately $750,000 on the low end to $5,000,000 or more on the high end. The low end assumes limited coverage and no gross negligence. The high end assumes significant earning capacity, UM/UIM recovery, and gross negligence evidence that creates Stowers bad-faith exposure. The primary deflator is collectibility — the insurance stack determines what can actually be recovered. This video explains how case value is calculated.
What should the family do in the first 72 hours?
Preserve evidence. Do not speak to insurance adjusters. Do not sign anything. Do not post on social media. Secure the vehicles. Send preservation letters to every party that holds evidence — the at-fault driver, their insurer, their cell phone carrier, Medical Center Hospital, and any nearby properties with surveillance. Request the DPS crash report. Identify all insurance policies, including the decedents’ own UM/UIM coverage. Contact an attorney — the consultation is free, and the preservation letters go out the day you call. The evidence that wins this case disappears in days and weeks, not months.
Can both families recover from the same insurance policy?
Yes, but they share the at-fault driver’s per-incident limit. If the at-fault driver carries $100,000 per person and $300,000 per incident, the two families share the $300,000 per-incident cap — even though each individual death may be worth far more than $150,000. This is exactly why UM/UIM recovery from the decedents’ own policies is critical. Each decedent’s UM/UIM coverage is a separate stack, tied to that decedent’s own policy. The at-fault driver’s limits are the starting point, not the ceiling.
The Insurance Industry’s Valuation System — and How to Defeat It
Insurance companies do not value claims by hand. They use claims-valuation software — systems like Colossus — that assign values to injuries based on standardized inputs: diagnosis codes, treatment duration, medical bill amounts, and broad injury categories. The software is designed to produce consistent, low settlements. It does not account for the specific facts of a crash, the individual losses of a family, or the full measure of what a human life is worth.
Lupe Peña knows these systems from the inside. As a former insurance-defense attorney at a national firm, he was trained in how carriers set reserves, how they select independent medical examiners, how they use surveillance and social media monitoring, and how they deploy delay tactics to push families toward accepting less than their case is worth. He knows that the adjuster’s first offer is typically a fraction of the case’s actual value — a number generated by software, not by a human being who has looked a grieving family in the eye.
The way to defeat the valuation system is to build a case that the software cannot capture. A forensic economist’s projection of a 33-year-old’s lifetime earning capacity is not a line item in Colossus. A reconstruction engineer’s analysis of the at-fault driver’s speed and braking from the EDR data is not an input the software considers. A Stowers demand that puts the carrier’s own money at risk above its policy limits is not a variable in the adjuster’s formula. The case is built from evidence and expert analysis, not from a software prompt — and that is why the insurance industry’s own tools cannot value it honestly.
Why Attorney911: The Trial Team Behind This Analysis
We are not writing this page to tell you we are the only firm that can handle this case. We are writing it to tell you exactly what we would do — and exactly what is at stake — so that you can make an informed decision about who represents your family.
Ralph P. Manginello is the Managing Partner of The Manginello Law Firm. He has been licensed in Texas since November 6, 1998 — 27-plus years of trial practice, including in federal court (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas). He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — he earned his B.A. in Journalism and Public Relations from the University of Texas at Austin, then his J.D. from South Texas College of Law Houston. He approaches every case the way a reporter approaches a story: find the facts, follow the evidence, and build the narrative that a jury can feel. He speaks Spanish. He has spent nearly three decades in courtrooms across Texas, and he knows what an Ector County jury needs to hear.
Lupe Peña is an Associate Attorney at the firm, licensed in Texas since December 6, 2012. He earned his J.D. from South Texas College of Law Houston and his B.B.A. in International Business from Saint Mary’s University in San Antonio. He is a third-generation Texan with family roots to the King Ranch. He is fluent in Spanish — he conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. And before he joined this firm, he worked at a national insurance-defense firm. He sat in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims. He knows how Colossus values injuries, how reserves are set, how IME doctors are selected, how surveillance is deployed, and how delay tactics are engineered to push families toward accepting less. He now uses that inside knowledge for the families — not the carriers.
The Fee Structure
We work on contingency. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% of the recovery if the case is resolved before trial, and 40% if the case goes to trial. There are no hourly charges, no retainer fees, no upfront costs. The consultation is free. And it is confidential.
How to Reach Us
Call 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911). The line is answered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — by live staff, not an answering service. You can also reach us at our Houston office: 1177 West Loop South, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77027. Or email Ralph directly at ralph@atty911.com or Lupe at lupe@atty911.com.
Hablamos Español. If your family communicates in Spanish, Lupe conducts the full consultation in Spanish — every question answered, every right explained, every deadline identified — without an interpreter and without anything lost in translation.
What the First Call Feels Like
The first call is not a sales pitch. It is a conversation. We listen to what happened. We answer your questions. We explain the law that applies — the wrongful death statute, the survival statute, the statute of limitations, the negligence per se doctrine, the UM/UIM framework, the Stowers lever. We tell you what evidence needs to be preserved and how fast it is disappearing. And if we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you that too — because the most important thing is that your family is represented by the right trial team, whether that is us or someone else.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But every word above is written by a Texas trial team that knows exactly how these cases are built, how the insurance industry fights them, and what the evidence looks like before it disappears. The question is not whether the evidence exists. It does. The question is whether anyone preserves it before it is gone.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. Hablamos Español.