East Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan — When a Fraternity’s “Tradition” Kills Your Child
If you are reading this page, your family has been hit by something that was not supposed to happen. A son went to college. He joined a fraternity. He went to a party. And he did not come home. Now you are sitting at a kitchen table at an hour when nobody should be awake, trying to understand how a 21-year-old can die from drinking at a party — and who is going to answer for it.
We are Attorney911. We are a trial firm that takes wrongful-death and catastrophic-injury cases, including hazing cases, in Michigan. Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello, has spent 27 years in courtrooms, including federal court, and is currently lead counsel in an active $10 million hazing lawsuit against a university fraternity. Our associate, 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 — and now uses that knowledge for injured families. He conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
This page exists because what happened at Michigan State University in 2021 is not an isolated tragedy. It is a pattern. And the law — specifically, Michigan’s anti-hazing statute — just survived a constitutional challenge before the Michigan Supreme Court, which means the path to accountability, both criminal and civil, is now open. Here is what that means for your family, in plain language, from the attorneys who would sit across that kitchen table from you.
What Happened at Pi Alpha Phi — and What It Means Under Michigan Law
In 2021, a 21-year-old pledge at Pi Alpha Phi fraternity at Michigan State University died of what the medical examiner determined was acute ethanol toxicity. His blood-alcohol level was 0.386 percent — nearly five times the legal driving limit. When East Lansing police arrived, they found him unconscious and not breathing. In the same basement, they found other young people unconscious on the floor with blood-alcohol levels of 0.467 percent, 0.324 percent, and 0.128 percent. One of those numbers — 0.467 — is a level at which most human bodies simply stop breathing.
Nine students were initially arrested. Six had their charges dismissed. A seventh pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. The remaining defendant challenged the constitutionality of Michigan’s anti-hazing statute itself — arguing the law was too vague or too broad to enforce. The Michigan Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the law. The constitutional challenge failed. The case proceeds.
“Now that the constitutional challenges have been resolved, we look forward to trying this case in court.”
That was the Ingham County Prosecutor. The criminal docket is moving. But the criminal case is only one lane. The family of a young person killed by hazing has a separate, civil lane — a wrongful death claim that runs on its own timeline, its own evidence, and its own rules. The criminal case can establish that the conduct happened. The civil case is what compensates the family for a life that was taken.
The Three Questions Every Hazing Family Asks First
Can we sue? Yes. Michigan’s anti-hazing statute — now upheld by the state’s highest court — provides a criminal framework, but the civil wrongful death claim is a separate cause of action. A family can pursue a wrongful death lawsuit against the individuals who organized and ran the hazing event, the local fraternity chapter, the national fraternity organization, and potentially the university. The criminal case and the civil case are parallel proceedings. One does not depend on the other. The civil case does not have to wait for the criminal case to finish.
How much is the case worth? The wrongful death of a 21-year-old carries enormous economic value — a full lifetime of lost earnings and earning capacity, plus the human losses that no receipt can measure. The specific number depends on the facts: the victim’s age, education, career trajectory, family relationships, and the severity of the defendants’ conduct. We build the number from a life-care plan and a forensic economist’s projection, not from a formula. What we can tell you is that hazing cases tend to carry significant non-economic and potential exemplary damages because the conduct is not accidental — it is intentional, organized, and foreseeable.
How long do we have? Michigan’s wrongful death statute of limitations generally requires the claim to be filed within three years of the date of death. That clock is shorter than most families expect, and it runs while you are grieving. But the evidence in a hazing case disappears faster than the deadline — group chats get deleted, students graduate and scatter, social media posts come down, and memories fade. The deadline is three years. The evidence may be gone in weeks. That is why the day you call a lawyer is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
Michigan’s Anti-Hazing Statute — The Law That Just Survived
Michigan has an anti-hazing statute that makes hazing a criminal offense, with enhanced penalties when hazing causes death or serious injury. The defendant in this case mounted a constitutional challenge — arguing the law was unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected that challenge. The Michigan Supreme Court upheld that ruling. The law stands.
This matters for a civil wrongful death case in two ways. First, a violation of a statute designed to protect a class of people — here, pledges — from a specific kind of harm — here, hazing — can be used as evidence of negligence, or in some jurisdictions as negligence per se. The fact that the Michigan Supreme Court has now confirmed the statute is constitutional means the predicate is solid. Second, the criminal case that now proceeds will generate a public record — testimony, evidence, findings — that can inform the civil case.
We do not guess statute section numbers on this page because we are not going to risk your case on a citation we have not independently confirmed at the moment of filing. What we can tell you with full confidence is the doctrine: Michigan’s anti-hazing statute survived a constitutional challenge at the state’s highest court, and it provides a criminal predicate that strengthens the civil wrongful death claim that runs alongside it.
The Defendant Structure — Who Actually Pays for a Hazing Death
This is the single most important strategic block in a hazing wrongful death case. The family’s grief is focused on the person who died. The defense’s strategy is to make sure no single defendant has enough money to matter. Here is the structure — and here is how we break through it.
The Individual Members
The students who organized and ran the hazing event — the ones who bought the alcohol, set the rules, pressured the pledges, and failed to call 911 in time — are individually liable. But college students typically have no assets and limited insurance. A judgment against a 22-year-old is often a piece of paper. The individual cases matter for accountability, but they are not where the recovery lives.
The Local Chapter
Pi Alpha Phi’s Michigan State University chapter was closed after the death. A local chapter may have its own insurance — typically a general liability policy — but the limits are often modest and the entity may be thinly capitalized. The chapter’s closure does not eliminate its liability for conduct that occurred while it was operating, but it may limit the assets available to satisfy a judgment.
The National Fraternity Organization
This is where the real money sits in most hazing cases. The national fraternity — Pi Alpha Phi’s national organization — charters the local chapter, collects dues, sets policies, dictates the pledging process, and controls whether the chapter is allowed to exist. The national organization typically carries significant insurance. Its defense is always the same: “We did not control the day-to-day operations of the local chapter; the chapter is an independent affiliate.” That defense is the fight. We pierce it by showing the national organization set the pledging framework, trained the members, collected the money, and knew or should have known that the hazing culture existed within its chapters. Our firm is currently litigating exactly this fight — the question of what the national organization knew and when it knew it.
The University
Michigan State University may face claims depending on its knowledge of hazing within this fraternity, its oversight of Greek life, and whether it took adequate steps to prevent hazing it knew or should have known about. Public universities in Michigan may raise governmental immunity defenses, but those defenses have exceptions — and the facts of what the university knew, when it knew it, and what it did or did not do determine whether the immunity holds.
The Property and the Alcohol
If the fraternity house was owned or leased by a separate entity — a housing corporation, a landlord, a national fraternity property holding company — that entity may carry separate liability. And the source of the alcohol matters: Michigan’s dram shop and social host liability rules may create additional avenues of recovery depending on who furnished the alcohol and how.
The Medicine — What a Blood-Alcohol Level of 0.386 Actually Means
The medical examiner determined the cause of death was acute ethanol toxicity. Here is what that means in human terms, and why it matters to the case.
Ethanol — the alcohol in drinks — is a central nervous system depressant. It works by enhancing the effect of a neurotransmitter called GABA, which slows brain activity, and suppressing glutamate, which normally excites it. At low doses, that produces relaxation and lowered inhibitions. At higher doses, it produces slurred speech, loss of coordination, and confusion. At the levels found in that basement, it produces something far worse.
The blood-alcohol levels found at the scene, translated:
- 0.128 percent — about 1.5 times the legal driving limit. Significant impairment, but not immediately life-threatening on its own.
- 0.324 percent — over four times the legal limit. This is the range of stupor. The person may be conscious but barely responsive. The risk of aspiration — breathing vomit into the lungs while semiconscious — is significant.
- 0.386 percent — nearly five times the legal limit. This is the range where the brainstem’s respiratory centers begin to shut down. Breathing becomes shallow and irregular. The heart rate drops. Body temperature falls. Without intervention, death follows. This was the level of the young man who died.
- 0.467 percent — nearly six times the legal limit. This is a level at which most people would already be in a coma or dead. The fact that this person survived suggests they received emergency medical intervention — intubation, IV fluids, respiratory support — in time. The difference between living and dying at these levels is measured in minutes.
The mechanism of death in acute ethanol toxicity is respiratory depression. The alcohol suppresses the brainstem’s drive to breathe. Carbon dioxide builds up in the blood. Oxygen levels fall. The heart, starved of oxygen, develops arrhythmias. Without someone to call 911, position the person on their side to prevent aspiration, and begin monitoring, the progression from unconsciousness to death can take less than an hour.
That last point is the one that matters most in the civil case: someone in that basement was unconscious and not breathing, and the question is how long he lay there before anyone called for help. Every minute of delay is a minute the defense will have to explain.
The defense will argue the victim voluntarily consumed the alcohol. The answer is that hazing is not voluntary. A pledge who is told to drink, who is in a basement surrounded by members who outrank him in the fraternity hierarchy, who is being “tested” as part of a ritual — that person is not freely choosing to drink. He is being coerced. The power dynamic of pledging is the entire mechanism of hazing, and it is the reason Michigan made hazing a crime.
The Evidence Clock — What Records Exist and How Fast They Disappear
A hazing wrongful death case is built from records that exist right now and will not exist in six months. Here is what we need to freeze, who holds it, and how fast it can legally die.
Group text messages and group chats. Pledges and members communicate through group texts, GroupMe threads, Snapchat groups, and Discord servers. These messages contain the instructions, the pressure, the plans, and the warnings. They are the single most important evidence in a hazing case. They are also the most fragile — students delete them, apps auto-erase them, and the group dissolves when the chapter closes. A preservation letter demanding the retention of these communications goes out the day we are retained.
Social media posts. Photos and videos from the party — on Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok — may capture the scene, the alcohol, the state of the victims, and the conduct of the members. These posts get taken down fast, especially after a death. The platforms’ own retention windows vary, and once a post is deleted by the user, it may be gone from the platform’s servers within days. A preservation demand to the platform and to every account holder is urgent.
Police body-worn camera footage. East Lansing police responded to the scene. Their body cameras captured what they found — the basement, the unconscious bodies, the reactions of the fraternity members, the state of the environment. Police departments retain body camera footage on their own schedules, which can be as short as 30 to 90 days for non-evidentiary footage and longer for material flagged as evidence. We demand it immediately, before it cycles out.
The 911 call. The timing of the 911 call is the clock on the delay between when the victim became unconscious and when help was summoned. The audio, the timestamp, and the caller’s statements are all evidence. 911 audio is retained on a schedule set by the dispatch center — and it can be purged. Demand it in writing.
Fraternity records. The local chapter’s pledge materials, bylaws, risk management policies, event registers, disciplinary records, and communications with the national organization. If the chapter has been closed, these records may be in the possession of the national fraternity or the university’s Greek life office. They may be “lost” or destroyed in the wind-down. The national organization may hold its own investigation files, insurance claims, and prior-incident records. Demand all of it.
University records. Michigan State University’s Greek life oversight files, any prior complaints about Pi Alpha Phi, any conduct violations, any hazing awareness training records, and the university’s own investigation of this incident. Universities retain records on their own schedules, but student disciplinary records are subject to FERPA and state retention rules that can limit access. Subpoena early.
Medical examiner and toxicology records. The autopsy report, the toxicology panel, the blood-alcohol measurements, and the medical examiner’s determination of cause of death. These are official records and are generally retained, but they must be obtained formally and in full — not just the summary, but the underlying lab work.
Witness statements. The pledges who were there, the members who were there, the neighbors, the first responders. Students graduate and scatter. Memories shift. A witness who is interviewed in week one tells a different story than one interviewed in month six. Identifying and preserving witness accounts early is the difference between a case built on fresh recollection and one built on faded, contested memory.
The master move in every hazing case is the preservation demand. It goes out the day you call. It names every category of evidence, every holder, and every device. It converts an automatic deletion into a spoliation problem — because once the letter is on file, the destruction of evidence is no longer routine; it is an act a jury can be told about.
The Insurance Reality — Where the Money Actually Comes From
In a hazing wrongful death case, the money does not come from one pocket. It comes from a stack of policies and entities, each with its own defense team, each pointing at the next.
The individual members may have personal liability coverage under their families’ homeowners or umbrella policies — but those policies often exclude intentional acts, and hazing is intentionally committed. The coverage fight on the individual side is real.
The local chapter may carry a general liability policy, but the limits are often in the hundreds of thousands, not the millions. The chapter may also be an additional insured under the national organization’s policy, which can open a larger tower.
The national fraternity is the deep pocket. National organizations typically carry substantial liability insurance — often layered, with a primary policy and multiple excess towers above it. The national’s insurer will fight the coverage and the liability, arguing the local chapter is independent. But the national set the pledging standards, collected the dues, trained the members, and chartered the chapter. The coverage is there. The fight is getting to it.
The university’s coverage depends on governmental immunity and whether the specific exception applies. If immunity is overcome, the university’s self-insured pool or commercial coverage can be a significant source of recovery.
The full coverage picture is something we build in discovery — we demand every policy, every layer, every additional-insured endorsement. The first number the defense gives you is never the last number.
The Playbook — What the Defense Will Do and How We Counter
The insurance industry and the fraternity defense bar have a predictable set of plays they run in hazing wrongful death cases. Lupe Peña knows them from the inside — he spent years at a national defense firm before coming to our side of the table. Here are the plays, and here is what we do about each one.
Play 1: “He chose to drink.”
The defense will frame the victim as a willing participant who made his own choices. The counter is the power dynamic of pledging. A pledge is not a peer at a party. He is a subordinate being tested, pressured, and evaluated. The fraternity created the environment, set the expectations, supplied the alcohol, and controlled the situation. “Voluntary” consumption in a hazing context is not voluntary — it is the mechanism of the harm. Michigan made hazing a crime precisely because the power imbalance makes consent illusory. We put the fraternity’s own pledging structure in front of the jury and ask: in this dynamic, what does “no” look like?
Play 2: “The national organization did not control the local chapter.”
The national fraternity will argue it is a separate entity that merely licenses its name. The counter is the control trail — the national’s pledging manual, its risk management policies, its training requirements, its chapter reports, its annual reviews, its dues collection, its insurance program, and its prior knowledge of hazing at this or other chapters. The national does not get to charter a chapter, dictate its pledging process, collect its money, and then disclaim responsibility when that process kills someone. We subpoena the national’s own files and let the documents make the case.
Play 3: The quick settlement offer from an individual defendant.
A fraternity member’s family insurance may produce a fast settlement offer — a check with a release attached, designed to close the file before the family has identified all the defendants and the full coverage picture. The counter is simple: do not sign anything until every defendant is identified and every policy is disclosed. A quick check for tens of thousands, signed in the first weeks, can extinguish a case worth millions. The release the individual carrier hands you may purport to release all defendants — not just their insured. We review every release, and we do not let a partial settlement close the door on the deep-pocket defendants.
Play 4: “The university cannot be sued because of governmental immunity.”
Michigan’s governmental immunity statutes protect public universities from many tort claims, but the exceptions are fact-specific. If the university had actual notice of hazing in this fraternity and failed to act, if the injury occurred on university property under a university-controlled activity, or if a specific statutory exception applies, immunity may not hold. We investigate the university’s knowledge and conduct and pursue every exception.
Play 5: Blaming the victim’s physiology.
The defense may argue the victim had a low tolerance, or an undiagnosed condition, or that his body simply reacted differently than others. This is the eggshell-plaintiff doctrine in reverse: a defendant takes the victim as found. A person’s tolerance for alcohol does not make it acceptable to force or coerce them to drink to a blood-alcohol level of 0.386 percent. The fact that others survived the same night does not make the victim’s death his own fault — it makes the fraternity’s conduct more dangerous, not less.
The Proof Story — How a Hazing Wrongful Death Case Is Actually Built
Here is how the case is built, week by week, from the day you call.
In the first week, the preservation letters go out — to the local chapter, the national fraternity, the university, every individual we can identify, every social media platform, the police department, the dispatch center, and the medical examiner. These letters freeze the evidence. They name every category: group chats, social media, police body cam, 911 audio, fraternity records, university files, medical records, witness identities. Once the letter is on file, destruction becomes spoliation, and spoliation is leverage.
In the first month, we begin the records avalanche. We subpoena the police investigation file, the toxicology report, the autopsy, the university’s Greek life file, the national fraternity’s charter and oversight records for this chapter, and the insurance policies. We identify every witness — every pledge, every member, every neighbor, every first responder — and we start building the timeline.
In the first quarter, we depose the key witnesses. The fraternity members who were at the party. The pledges who survived. The first responders. The university officials responsible for Greek life oversight. Under oath, in a room, with a court reporter, the story comes out. The group chat that said “bring your pledges.” The text that said “they need to finish the bottle.” The member who walked past an unconscious pledge on the basement floor and did nothing. The time gap between when the victim collapsed and when someone called 911.
In the second quarter, we bring in the experts. A forensic toxicologist to explain what a BAC of 0.386 means and how the victim died. A forensic economist to project the lifetime earnings of a 21-year-old. A fraternity hazing expert to explain the power dynamics of pledging and why “voluntary” drinking in a hazing context is not voluntary. A life-care planner if there are surviving victims with ongoing medical needs.
The number at the end is built from all of it — the medical proof, the economic projection, the human loss, the defendant’s conduct, and the jury’s assessment of what a young life was worth and what the fraternity’s choices deserve. We do not give the defense a number until the proof is assembled. The first offer from us is not a guess — it is a demand built on the evidence.
Michigan’s Wrongful Death Framework — Who Files and What They Recover
Michigan, like every state, has a wrongful death statute that governs who may bring the claim, what damages are recoverable, and how the recovery is distributed. We handle the appointment of the personal representative — the person Michigan law authorizes to bring the family’s case — as part of our work.
The damages in a Michigan wrongful death case generally include both economic and non-economic losses. The economic stream includes lost future earnings and earning capacity, medical and funeral expenses, and the loss of the victim’s services to the household. The non-economic losses include the loss of the victim’s society and companionship — the relationship itself, the guidance, the shared future that was taken.
Michigan follows a modified comparative negligence rule. If the victim is found to be less than 50 percent at fault, the family’s recovery is reduced by the victim’s percentage of fault but is not barred. If the victim is found to be 50 percent or more at fault, recovery is barred. This is why the defense works so hard to pin fault on the victim — every percentage point they assign to the deceased is money off the recovery, and reaching 50 percent kills the case entirely. In a hazing context, the comparative-fault fight is the central battleground, and the power dynamic of pledging is the answer to it.
The statute of limitations for wrongful death in Michigan generally runs three years from the date of death. There are narrow circumstances that can affect accrual, but the safe assumption is three years — and the evidence dies long before the deadline does.
The First 72 Hours — What to Do and What Not to Do
If your family is in the immediate aftermath of a hazing death, here is the practical roadmap. Medical first, always — but in a fatality, the medical reality has already happened. What remains is evidence and decisions.
Do not sign anything. The fraternity, its insurer, the university, or an individual member’s family may produce a release, a settlement offer, or a “goodwill” payment with strings attached. Do not sign it. Do not cash a check. Do not agree to anything verbally. Every piece of paper in a hazing death is designed to limit liability. We review it before you touch it.
Do not post on social media. No statements, no photos, no tributes that reference the circumstances. The defense will mine every public post for anything that can be used to minimize the loss or assign fault. Grieve privately. Let us handle the public face of the case.
Do not speak to the fraternity’s insurer or investigator. If someone calls to “check on the family” or asks you to “just tell us what happened,” that call is recorded and engineered to produce statements that help the defense. Refer every caller to us.
Do preserve what you have. Your son’s phone, his computer, his group chats, his text messages, his social media accounts — all of it is evidence. Do not delete anything. Do not factory-reset any device. Secure his belongings. If you have access to his accounts, do not alter or delete anything — but do not go fishing either. Preserve and hand it to us.
Do call us. The preservation letters, the records demands, the witness identification, the insurance investigation — all of it starts the day you call. The evidence in a hazing case has a shorter shelf life than the statute of limitations. The single most important thing you can do in the first 72 hours is put a lawyer on the clock.
What the Case Is Worth — An Honest Answer
Families ask us this in the first five minutes of every consultation. Here is the honest answer.
A wrongful death case involving a 21-year-old who died because a fraternity forced or coerced him to drink to a lethal blood-alcohol level is, on the liability side, one of the strongest wrongful death fact patterns there is. The conduct is intentional, not accidental. The statutory framework has been upheld by the state supreme court. The medicine is clear and documented. The defendant structure includes a national organization with real insurance.
On the damages side, the economic value of a 21-year-old’s lost lifetime earnings — depending on education, career path, and earning trajectory — can run into the millions. The non-economic losses — the loss of society and companionship, the relationship between a parent and a child, the future that was taken — are additional. And in a case involving intentional, organized conduct like hazing, the question of exemplary or punitive damages is real.
We do not promise a number. We do not tell you what your case is “worth” until we have reviewed the medical records, the toxicology, the police file, the fraternity’s records, the insurance policies, and the victim’s earning history. What we can tell you is that hazing wrongful death cases, when built correctly and pursued against the right defendants, are among the most significant personal injury and wrongful death claims in the legal system. The wrongful death cases we handle are built on evidence, not on hope.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can we file a wrongful death lawsuit if the criminal case is still pending?
Yes. The criminal case and the civil wrongful death case are separate proceedings with different burdens of proof, different rules, and different timelines. The criminal case is brought by the prosecutor on behalf of the state. The civil wrongful death case is brought by the family’s personal representative on behalf of the beneficiaries. The civil case does not have to wait for the criminal case to finish. In fact, moving the civil case in parallel with the criminal case can be strategically advantageous — the criminal investigation generates evidence and testimony that the civil case can use, and the civil discovery process can uncover facts the criminal case may not reach.
How long do we have to file a hazing wrongful death claim in Michigan?
Michigan’s wrongful death statute of limitations generally requires the claim to be filed within three years of the date of death. That is the legal deadline. The practical deadline — the one that matters — is much shorter, because the evidence in a hazing case (group chats, social media posts, police body cam footage, witness recollections) disappears in weeks and months, not years. The day you call a lawyer is the day the preservation letters go out, freezing the evidence before it can be destroyed.
Who can be sued in a fraternity hazing death?
The potential defendants include the individual fraternity members who organized and ran the hazing event, the local fraternity chapter, the national fraternity organization, the university (subject to governmental immunity analysis), any property owner or housing corporation, and potentially any entity that furnished the alcohol. The national fraternity is typically the defendant with the deepest pockets and the most insurance. The fight is proving the national organization’s control over and knowledge of the local chapter’s pledging practices.
Will the fraternity’s insurance cover a hazing death?
The national fraternity typically carries layered liability insurance with substantial limits. The individual members may have coverage under their families’ homeowners or umbrella policies, but those policies often exclude intentional acts — and hazing is intentional. The local chapter may have its own policy. The coverage fight is a major part of the case. We demand every policy, every layer, and every additional-insured endorsement in discovery. The first coverage answer the defense gives is never the last one.
What if the fraternity says our son “chose to drink”?
This is the defense’s primary play, and it fails because hazing is not voluntary. A pledge in a basement, surrounded by members who outrank him, being tested as part of a ritual, is not freely choosing to consume alcohol. The power dynamic of pledging is the mechanism of hazing. Michigan made hazing a crime precisely because the coercion inherent in the pledging relationship makes meaningful consent impossible. The comparative-fault fight in a hazing case is the central battleground, and the power dynamic is the answer.
Does the university have liability for an off-campus fraternity hazing death?
Potentially, yes. Even if the fraternity house is off-campus, the university may have liability if it had knowledge of hazing within this fraternity, if it failed to take adequate steps to prevent known hazing, or if its oversight of Greek life was negligent. Michigan public universities may raise governmental immunity defenses, but those defenses have exceptions that depend on the specific facts — what the university knew, when it knew it, and what it did or did not do in response. We investigate the university’s Greek life oversight file, prior complaints, and conduct records.
What evidence is most important in a hazing wrongful death case?
The most critical evidence is often the most fragile: group text messages and group chats among pledges and members, social media posts from the party, police body camera footage from the scene, the 911 call timestamp, witness statements, the medical examiner’s report and toxicology, the fraternity’s own pledging materials and policies, and the national organization’s oversight records. All of this can be lost if preservation letters are not sent immediately. The evidence dies faster than the deadline.
How is the value of a hazing wrongful death case calculated?
The value is built from several streams: the economic loss (lost lifetime earnings and earning capacity, medical and funeral expenses, lost household services), the non-economic loss (loss of society and companionship, loss of guidance, loss of the relationship), and potentially exemplary or punitive damages for intentional or reckless conduct. A forensic economist projects the lost earnings. A life-care planner addresses any surviving victims’ medical needs. The non-economic losses are what a jury determines the relationship was worth. The conduct of the defendants — intentional hazing that led to death — drives the punitive question.
Can we still pursue a case if the fraternity chapter has been closed?
Yes. The closure of the local chapter does not eliminate liability for conduct that occurred while it was operating. The chapter’s assets and insurance may still be available. The national organization’s liability is separate and survives the chapter closure. And the individual members remain liable regardless of the chapter’s status. A closed chapter is a defendant with potentially fewer assets, but it is not a defendant that has vanished.
What should we do if the fraternity’s insurance company contacts us?
Do not speak with them. Do not give a recorded statement. Do not sign anything. Do not accept any payment. The fraternity’s insurer is not your friend — it is a business working to minimize what the fraternity pays. Any statement you give will be transcribed, analyzed, and used to reduce or deny your claim. Refer every caller to us. The first contact from the insurance company should be the last contact you handle yourself.
Who We Are — The Trial Team Behind This Page
Ralph Manginello is the managing partner of our firm and has spent 27 years in courtrooms, including federal court. He is licensed in Texas (Bar #24007597, admitted November 6, 1998) and admitted to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas. He is lead counsel in the active $10 million Bermudez v. Pi Kappa Phi / University of Houston hazing lawsuit — a case that puts him squarely in the fight over what fraternities and universities owe when pledging traditions turn lethal. Ralph was a journalist before he was a lawyer, and he investigates cases the way a reporter investigates a story: he finds the documents nobody else asked for, he follows the trail nobody else saw, and he does not stop until the full picture is in front of the jury. You can read more about Ralph here.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney, licensed in Texas (Bar #24084332, admitted 2012) and admitted to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas. Before joining our firm, Lupe spent years at a national insurance-defense firm — the same kind of firm the fraternity’s insurer will hire. He knows how adjusters set reserves, how valuation software prices a claim, how IME doctors are selected, and how delay tactics are engineered. He knows because he used to run those plays. Now he runs them for the other side — yours. Lupe is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. If your family is more comfortable in Spanish, Lupe is the attorney you meet with.
We are a Houston-based firm that takes wrongful-death and catastrophic-injury cases in Michigan, working with local counsel and pro hac vice admission as required. We do not claim an office in Michigan. We do claim a record in hazing litigation, a trial team that knows how these cases are built, and a former insurance-defense insider who knows exactly how the other side will try to minimize your loss.
The Call — What Happens When You Contact Us
The call is free. The consultation is free. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — and when you call, you speak to a live person on our staff, not an answering service. We work on contingency: 33.33 percent before trial, 40 percent if the case goes to trial. We do not get paid unless we win your case.
When you call 1-888-ATTY-911, here is what happens. We listen to what happened. We ask the questions that matter for the legal analysis — the timeline, the defendants, the evidence, the medical reality. We tell you honestly whether we believe you have a case and whether we are the right firm to handle it. If we are not the right fit, we will tell you. If we are, we explain the next steps, the preservation strategy, and what the first weeks will look like.
You can also reach us at (713) 528-9070, by email at ralph@atty911.com or lupe@atty911.com, or through our contact page.
Hablamos Español. Lupe conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. If your family prays in Spanish, call in Spanish.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
The Bottom Line
A 21-year-old pledge went to a fraternity party at Michigan State University and died of alcohol poisoning. His blood-alcohol level was 0.386 percent. Others were found unconscious around him with levels as high as 0.467 percent. The fraternity chapter is closed. Nine students were arrested. The state’s anti-hazing law was challenged all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court — and it survived. The criminal case proceeds. The civil case — your family’s case — is a separate fight, on a separate track, with its own deadline and its own evidence.
The deadline is three years. The evidence is dying now. The call is free. We do not get paid unless we win.
1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. 24/7. No fee unless we win your case.