Amarillo Fuel Tanker Crash Into ABC 7 Building: Your Legal Rights After a Hit-and-Run DWI Collision Destroyed a Steel Support Beam
If you are reading this at 2 a.m. from a phone in Amarillo — whether you are the building owner staring at a compromised steel beam and a chain-link fence folded into scrap, the fuel tanker driver who was sitting in a cab that got shoved through a security fence and into a television station, or a family member who got the call that someone you love was hurt in the overnight crash that shook the northwest corner of the ABC 7 studios — you are in the right place. We built this page for you. Not for traffic. For you.
Here is what we know: a 19-year-old pickup driver struck a fuel tanker in a hit-and-run collision in Amarillo, sending the tanker crashing into the ABC 7 (KVII) television station building. The impact destroyed a steel support beam in the northwest corner of the building. Debris from a destroyed security fence broke a window. A light pole was knocked down. Sales offices were rendered off-limits. The crash happened overnight, which is the only reason no building employees were injured — the sales staff who would have been sitting at desks in that corner of the building was absent. The pickup driver fled before officers arrived. He has admitted to driving. He had not surrendered at the Potter County jail as of public reporting. And he has recent DWI, drug, and gun charges — a documented pattern of dangerous conduct that was knowable to anyone who handed him keys.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. Ralph Manginello has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like you — and now sits on your side of the table, in English or in Spanish. We handle commercial vehicle crashes, catastrophic injuries, and property damage cases across Texas. We do not get paid unless we win. The first call is free. And the number is 1-888-ATTY-911.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But everything you read here is real — every statute, every deadline, every insurer tactic — because we would rather you walk away knowing the truth about what you are in than be told a comfortable lie.
What Happened in Amarillo: The Crash Sequence and the Chain of Causation
Amarillo sits at the crossroads of Interstate 40 and Interstate 27 — two of the heaviest commercial trucking corridors in the southern Great Plains. Fuel tanker traffic through this city is constant. HAZMAT haulers service regional fuel distribution terminals and retail gas stations along the surface roads that run adjacent to commercial properties like the ABC 7 studios. That proximity — buildings sitting feet from traffic lanes that carry 10,000-gallon fuel tankers — is not an abstract risk. It is the physical reality that made this crash possible.
Here is the chain of causation as the verified facts establish it: a 19-year-old pickup driver collided with a fuel tanker. The impact was sufficient to propel the tanker — a vehicle that, even partially loaded, weighs tens of thousands of pounds — off its intended path and into the ABC 7 building. The tanker destroyed a security fence, struck and destroyed a steel support beam in the northwest corner of the structure, knocked down a light pole, and sent fence debris through a window. The sales offices in that corner of the building are now off-limits — not because of cosmetic damage, but because a load-bearing steel beam was compromised. That is structural damage, not a fender-bender.
The pickup driver fled the scene before officers arrived. He has since admitted to driving. He had not surrendered to the Potter County jail as of public reporting. And a related report confirms he has recent DWI, drug, and gun charges — not allegations from the distant past, but recent pending charges that establish a documented, knowable pattern of dangerous conduct.
The reason no building employees were injured is not engineering and it is not luck. It is the clock. The crash happened overnight, when the sales staff who normally works in the damaged corner of the building was not there. Had this collision occurred during business hours, the structural beam failure, the flying fence debris, and the shattered glass would have struck occupied workstations. That is not speculation — that is what the physical evidence shows about where the damage landed. The fact that the sales staff was absent is a timing accident, not a safety feature.
Who Can Be Held Legally Responsible: The Defendant Map
When a pickup driver with a documented history of DWI and drug charges strikes a fuel tanker and sends it into a building, the first instinct is to look at the pickup driver and stop. That is exactly what the insurance companies hope you do — because a 19-year-old with pending criminal charges may carry only minimum liability coverage, and minimum coverage in Texas is a number that one night of structural engineering bills can exhaust.
The real defendant map in this case has multiple layers, and every layer matters.
The pickup driver is the primary at-fault party. He struck the fuel tanker, caused the chain-reaction impact into the building, and fled the scene. His documented prior DWI, drug, and gun charges — combined with fleeing — establish recklessness and a conscious disregard for the safety of others. He has admitted to driving. He is civilly liable for the property damage, the structural damage, the business interruption, and any personal injuries the collision caused. But his personal assets and insurance coverage may be limited, which is why the map does not stop with him.
The owner of the pickup truck — if different from the driver — is a critical defendant. Under Texas law, if someone entrusts their vehicle to a driver they knew or should have known was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless, that owner is liable for the resulting harm. When the driver has recent DWI and drug charges that were knowable to the owner, the negligent entrustment claim is not speculative — it is the difference between a case against a broke 19-year-old and a case against a vehicle owner with real insurance and real assets. We discuss the legal elements in detail below.
An alcohol provider or establishment — if the driver was overserved while obviously intoxicated before the crash — is a potential defendant under Texas’s dram shop statute. If a bar, restaurant, or store served alcohol to a 19-year-old who was already obviously intoxicated, and that intoxication was a proximate cause of the crash, the provider is civilly liable. Texas treats this seriously. The legal standard is specific, and we break it down in the dram shop section below.
The fuel tanker operating entity is a potential cross-claim or contribution defendant if the tanker driver’s reaction, positioning, or route contributed to the outcome — but the tanker appears to be a victim vehicle, struck and propelled by the pickup, not the primary at-fault instrumentality. However, the tanker carrier is also a potential co-plaintiff with its own property damage and potential driver-injury claims. Identifying the carrier through the crash report, DPS records, and scene photographs is a first-priority investigative step — because the carrier’s insurance coverage, governed by federal HAZMAT financial responsibility requirements, may be the deepest pocket connected to this crash.
A parent or household member who entrusted the vehicle to the driver — particularly if the vehicle was a family car entrusted to a 19-year-old with known DWI and drug charges — is a negligent entrustment defendant under Texas law. The key question is what they knew and when they knew it.
An employer — if the driver was acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of the crash — would be vicariously liable for all resulting property and personal injury damages. At 2 a.m. on a weeknight, employment is less likely, but if the pickup was a work vehicle or the driver was performing job-related duties, the employer’s insurance tower becomes central to the case.
This is the defendant map. Every name on it is a coverage source. Every coverage source is a path to full recovery. The adjuster’s first move is to point at the 19-year-old and say “that’s your defendant” — our first move is to map every party whose choices contributed to this crash and whose insurance can actually pay for what it cost.
Texas Comparative Negligence: How Fault Works in This Crash
Texas follows a modified comparative negligence system with a 51% bar. The statute is clear and we quote it directly:
“In an action to which this chapter applies, a claimant may not recover damages if his percentage of responsibility is greater than 50 percent.”
— Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 33.001, 33.003(a), 33.012(a)
Here is what that means in plain English. The jury assigns each party a percentage of responsibility, stated in whole numbers. If you are found 50% or less at fault, you can recover — but your recovery is reduced by your percentage. If you are found 51% or more at fault, you are barred from recovering anything.
In this crash, the comparative negligence analysis matters most for two potential scenarios. First, if the fuel tanker driver is making a claim, the defense will try to assign the tanker driver some percentage of fault — arguing the tanker was positioned poorly, that the driver could have avoided the impact, or that the tanker’s speed or route contributed. Every percentage point they pin on the tanker driver is money subtracted from the recovery. Second, if the building owner is making a property damage claim, the defense may argue the building’s proximity to the traffic lane was a contributing factor — a premises causation argument that Potter County juries may or may not accept.
The at-fault pickup driver’s percentage will be high — likely the dominant share of fault, given that he struck a vehicle that was lawfully proceeding and then fled the scene. But the defense will look for every percentage point they can shift away from their insured and onto someone else. That is why the evidence preservation work we discuss below is not optional — it is the difference between a clean liability narrative and a contested one.
For more on how Texas handles comparative fault in commercial vehicle crashes, see our Houston truck accident lawyer page, which breaks down the same doctrine applied to tanker and 18-wheeler collisions.
Negligent Entrustment: When Someone Gives Keys to a Known Dangerous Driver
This is where a generalist misses the case and a trial lawyer builds it. The at-fault driver is 19 years old with recent DWI, drug, and gun charges. If someone other than him owned the pickup truck — a parent, a family member, a friend — and they handed him the keys knowing or having reason to know of his history, Texas law holds that person responsible.
The Texas Supreme Court established the elements of negligent entrustment decades ago, and they remain the controlling standard:
“The elements of negligent entrustment are: (1) entrustment of a vehicle by the owner; (2) to an unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless driver; (3) that the owner knew or should have known to be unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless; (4) that the driver was negligent on the occasion in question; and (5) that the driver’s negligence proximately caused the accident.”
— Williams v. Steves Indus., Inc., 699 S.W.2d 570, 571 (Tex. 1985); Schneider v. Esperanza Transmission Co., 744 S.W.2d 595, 596 (Tex. 1987)
Element by element, here is how this applies to the Amarillo crash:
Element 1 — Entrustment: Someone who was not the at-fault driver owned the pickup and permitted him to drive it. Texas DMV registration records will identify the registered owner. If the owner is a parent or household member, the entrustment inference is strong.
Element 2 — Unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless driver: A 19-year-old with recent DWI, drug, and gun charges fits this element squarely. And the evidence supports it — Texas courts have held that evidence of a driver’s prior arrest for driving while intoxicated supports a jury’s finding that the driver was reckless. (Landry v. Currie, No. 10-23-00346-CV (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 29, 2026, no pet.), citing Atlantic Indus., Inc. v. Blair, 457 S.W.3d 511, 518 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014))
Element 3 — The owner knew or should have known: This is the element that separates a real negligent entrustment claim from a wish. Texas law has a specific nuance here that a generalist will miss: where the basis of the entrustee’s incompetence is a history of DWI, Texas requires proof by general reputation evidence, not by proof of isolated instances or prior DWI convictions alone. (Compton v. Jay, 389 S.W.2d 639 (Tex. 1965)). This means we need to show that the owner knew or should have known of the driver’s reputation for dangerous conduct — not just that prior charges existed in a court file somewhere. In a family context, where a parent knows their child has been arrested for DWI and drug possession, the reputation evidence is often built from the household’s own knowledge: the conversations, the bail bondsman calls, the court dates the parent attended, the insurance premium changes. We build this element from the inside of the family’s actual knowledge, not from abstract court records.
Element 4 — The driver was negligent on the occasion in question: He struck a fuel tanker and fled the scene. The negligence is established by the physical evidence, the crash report, and his own admission.
Element 5 — Proximate cause: The tanker was propelled into the ABC 7 building, destroying a steel support beam and causing the damage chain. The causal link is direct.
Here is the killer takeaway: a generalist files the complaint against the 19-year-old driver and stops. A trial lawyer who knows negligent entrustment files against the owner, builds the reputation-evidence record, and opens a second insurance policy — one that may carry higher limits, an umbrella, or excess coverage that the driver’s own policy does not have. That is the difference between a case that covers the structural repairs and a case that covers the structural repairs plus the business interruption plus the stabilization engineering plus the security replacement plus the full measure of what this crash actually cost.
Dram Shop Liability: Was the Driver Overserved Before the Crash?
A 19-year-old should not have been drinking legally anywhere. But if an establishment served him alcohol — or if a provider served someone who was already obviously intoxicated and that person caused this crash — Texas law provides a civil cause of action against the provider.
The Texas Dram Shop Act is statutory and specific:
“(1) at the time the provision occurred it was apparent to the provider that the individual being sold, served, or provided with an alcoholic beverage was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others; and (2) the intoxication of the recipient of the alcoholic beverage was a proximate cause of the damages suffered.”
— Tex. Alcoh. Bev. Code § 2.02(b)
Two elements, both required. First, the provider had to know — or it had to be apparent — that the person was obviously intoxicated to the point of being a clear danger. Second, that intoxication had to be a proximate cause of the crash and the resulting damages.
For a 19-year-old driver, the dram shop investigation branches in two directions. If a bar or restaurant served him, the provider is exposed on two fronts: serving a minor and serving an obviously intoxicated person. If a store sold him alcohol, the sale to a minor is itself a violation. The investigation requires obtaining receipts, surveillance footage from the establishment, server testimony, and toxicology results that establish blood alcohol concentration at the time of the crash.
The dram shop claim is not automatic — it requires evidence that the driver was overserved, and the notice and evidentiary requirements under the statute are specific. But when it applies, it opens a defendant with insurance coverage and assets that a 19-year-old does not have. A bar or restaurant that overserves a 19-year-old who then plows into a fuel tanker and destroys a building is a defendant whose liquor liability coverage may be the difference between partial recovery and full recovery.
The investigation into whether alcohol was a factor begins with the driver’s toxicology, his cell phone records (which may show where he was before the crash), and the establishments along his route. This is time-sensitive work — surveillance footage from bars and stores overwrites on the same 7-to-30-day cycle as building security cameras.
Punitive Damages: When the Conduct Demands More Than Compensation
The at-fault driver’s documented pattern of DWI, drug, and gun charges, combined with fleeing the scene after destroying a building, is not ordinary negligence. Under Texas law, it is a predicate for punitive — exemplary — damages.
Texas defines gross negligence as conduct that, viewed objectively from the standpoint of the actor, involves an extreme degree of risk considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and of which the actor had actual, subjective awareness but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.001(11))
The statute requires that exemplary damages be proven by clear and convincing evidence:
“exemplary damages may be awarded only if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm with respect to which the claimant seeks recovery of exemplary damages results from: (1) fraud; (2) malice; or (3) gross negligence.”
— Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 41.003(a), 41.003(a)(3), 41.003(b)
A driver with recent DWI charges who gets behind the wheel, strikes a fuel tanker, destroys a building, and flees the scene is a textbook gross negligence candidate. The prior charges establish that he knew the risks of driving impaired — he had been charged with DWI before. The flight from the scene establishes conscious indifference — he left the wreckage behind without checking whether anyone was hurt. The combination is the kind of conduct that Texas juries in Potter County — conservative but responsive to clear liability narratives involving hit-and-run and impaired drivers — are willing to punish.
Texas does cap exemplary damages, however:
“Exemplary damages awarded against a defendant may not exceed an amount equal to the greater of: (1)(A) two times the amount of economic damages; plus (B) an amount equal to any noneconomic damages found by the jury, not to exceed $750,000; or (2) $200,000.”
— Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.008(b)
What this means: the cap is calculated from the economic and noneconomic damages the jury awards. The more economic damage you prove — structural repair costs, business interruption, medical bills, lost wages — the higher the punitive cap climbs. The cap is not a fixed ceiling; it scales with the proven loss. This is why the damages quantification work we discuss in the Money section is not just about compensatory recovery — it is the foundation that lifts the punitive cap.
The punitive damages claim matters most if personal injuries are confirmed — particularly for the tanker driver. Property damage punitive claims are available, but the clearest punitive exposure attaches when a person was harmed by the gross negligence. If the tanker driver was injured, the punitive claim transforms this from a property damage case into something significantly larger.
The Fuel Tanker as a Commercial Vehicle: FMCSA Regulations and Coverage
The fuel tanker in this crash is a commercial vehicle operating under federal regulation. Even though the tanker appears to be a victim vehicle — struck by the pickup and propelled into the building — the regulatory framework that governs it matters to every party in this case.
Commercial fuel tankers operating in Texas are governed by FMCSA regulations codified at 49 CFR parts 350 through 399. This includes hours-of-service rules under 49 CFR part 395, HAZMAT endorsement requirements, and — critically for the money side of this case — minimum financial responsibility requirements that are significantly elevated for placarded HAZMAT haulers.
The financial responsibility minimums scale with the hazard:
- $750,000 for non-hazardous property in freight vehicles
- $1,000,000 for oil, hazardous waste, and hazardous materials listed in 49 CFR 172.101
- $5,000,000 for hazardous substances transported in bulk in cargo tanks, portable tanks, or hopper-type vehicles, and for certain high-hazard divisions
(49 CFR 387.9)
A fuel tanker carrying gasoline or diesel falls under the hazardous materials category — which means the carrier’s minimum financial responsibility is at least $1,000,000 and potentially $5,000,000 depending on the specific material and whether it qualifies as a hazardous substance transported in bulk. That is not a trivial difference from the personal auto policy a 19-year-old might carry. That is the difference between a case that covers structural repairs and a case that covers everything.
Drivers transporting hazardous materials must obtain a hazardous materials endorsement, pass a knowledge test, and obtain TSA security threat assessment clearance before Texas DPS may issue the endorsement. (49 CFR 383.93(b)(4); 49 CFR 383.93(c)(4); 49 CFR 383.141). The tanker driver’s qualification file — including their HAZMAT endorsement, training records, and medical certification — is a discovery target that confirms the carrier’s regulatory compliance and can reveal whether any driver-side factor contributed to the outcome.
Texas DPS enforces motor carrier safety regulations statewide and investigates commercial vehicle crashes. The DPS crash report for this incident will identify the carrier, the vehicle’s DOT number, the commodity being hauled, and the driver’s status. That report is a first-priority document.
The carrier’s electronic logging device data, GPS records, and driver qualification files are also discoverable — and they are perishable. Federal law requires motor carriers to retain records of duty status and supporting documents for six months from the date of receipt. (49 CFR 395.8(k)(1)). After that, deletion is legal. The preservation letter that freezes those records must go out before the retention period expires — not after the insurance company decides whether to cooperate.
For a deeper look at how we handle commercial vehicle cases under the FMCSA framework, see our 18-wheeler accidents practice page.
The Evidence Clock: What Exists, Who Holds It, How Fast It Disappears
This is the section that decides whether your case is built on proof or on memory. Every piece of evidence in this crash is on a clock. Some clocks are short. Some are brutal. None of them wait for the insurance company to return your call.
ABC 7 Building Surveillance Footage — Immediate
The station’s own cameras are the strongest evidence source in this case. Media facilities typically maintain perimeter surveillance, and a television station is more likely than most commercial properties to have extensive camera coverage. Those cameras captured the full crash sequence — the pickup approaching, the impact with the tanker, the tanker being propelled into the building, and the pickup driver fleeing. That footage is the backbone of the liability case.
But here is the clock: DVR systems typically overwrite on a 7-to-30-day cycle. Every day that passes without a preservation demand, the footage degrades toward automatic deletion. The station may preserve it voluntarily — it is their building — but a formal preservation letter creates a legal duty to retain, and it creates consequences if the footage is lost. This is the first evidence source to freeze.
Police Crash Report and the Driver’s Admission — High Priority
The Amarillo Police Department crash report documents the chain of causation, the pickup driver’s admission to driving, and the hit-and-run violation. The driver’s admission is a statement against interest that establishes the first link in the civil liability chain. Police reports are generally available within days of the crash, but witness statements degrade as memory fades — and the longer the driver remains at large, the more the criminal case and the civil case diverge in ways that can complicate discovery.
EDR / Black Box Data From Both Vehicles — Critical
Both the pickup and the fuel tanker have event data recorders — black boxes that capture speed, braking, steering inputs, seatbelt use, and impact forces in the seconds before and during the collision. This data is the foundation of accident reconstruction. It tells us how fast the pickup was traveling, whether the tanker driver braced or braked, and the force vector that propelled the tanker into the building.
The clock on EDR data is brutal. If either vehicle is moved, repaired, scrapped, or “serviced,” the data can be overwritten or lost. The pickup may be in a tow yard accruing fees. The tanker may be at the carrier’s facility or an insurance inspection site. Neither vehicle should be released, repaired, or destroyed until the EDR data has been downloaded by a qualified reconstruction expert. The preservation letter must cover both vehicles — and it must go to the tow yard, the carrier, and any insurance company that has taken possession.
Cell Phone Records and Toxicology — High Priority
The pickup driver’s cell phone records establish whether he was distracted at the time of impact — texting, scrolling, on a call — and his location history in the hours before the crash, which is critical for the dram shop investigation. Cell carriers have limited retention windows for detailed records. Some carriers purge call detail records after 90 days; some hold them longer. The preservation demand to the carrier is time-sensitive.
Toxicology results — if a blood draw was obtained — will establish whether the driver was impaired at the time of the crash. If the driver was arrested or a warrant was issued, the toxicology may be part of the criminal case file. Blood draws must be obtained through criminal case discovery or through a civil subpoena, and the chain of custody must be preserved.
The Driver’s Prior Court Records — Moderate Priority, High Value
The DWI, drug, and gun charges are documented in court records. These records are preserved — they do not disappear — but obtaining certified copies early supports the demand strategy, the negligent entrustment claim, and the punitive damages predicate. The prior charges establish the pattern that makes this crash foreseeable to anyone who handed the driver keys, and they establish the conscious indifference that supports gross negligence.
Fuel Tanker ELD, GPS, and Driver Qualification Files — High Priority
The carrier’s electronic logging device data, GPS tracking, and driver qualification files confirm the carrier’s identity, the driver’s status, the route, and whether any tanker-driver factor contributed to the outcome. FMCSA requires retention, but the retention period is finite. A litigation hold letter must be sent to the carrier immediately to prevent destruction of records within the retention window.
Structural Engineering Reports and Building Repair Estimates — Moderate Priority
The structural damage — a destroyed steel support beam, a compromised northwest corner, off-limits sales offices — must be documented by a licensed structural engineer before repairs are completed. Photographs, engineering assessments, and repair estimates quantify the property damages and preserve the evidence of the original damage extent. Once repairs are made, the physical evidence of what the crash did to the building is gone. The engineering report is the record that survives.
Name the Price of Destruction
When a defendant lets required evidence die after receiving a preservation demand, the law answers. An adverse-inference instruction allows the jury to assume the lost record was as bad as the plaintiff says it was. Sanctions are available. In some cases, a separate claim for the destruction itself may exist. The bar for the harshest sanctions is high, but the leverage begins the moment the preservation letter is on file — because the insurance company knows that a lost surveillance video or a wiped EDR changes the entire posture of the case. The preservation letter is not a formality. It is the first shot in the fight.
The Insurance Reality: Following the Money Trail
Here is the hard truth that no adjuster will tell you and that every person affected by this crash needs to understand: the at-fault driver is 19 years old with pending criminal charges. His personal auto coverage may be the Texas minimum — and Texas minimum liability coverage is a number that a single night of structural engineering, stabilization, and building repair can consume before the sun comes up.
But the insurance reality is not one policy. It is a ladder. And the job is to climb every rung.
Rung 1 — The driver’s personal auto liability policy. This is the first layer. It may be minimum coverage. It may be higher. The policy limits must be confirmed through a demand for policy limits information, which Texas law requires insurers to provide when a claim is presented. If the driver was excluded from the policy — if the vehicle owner’s policy specifically excluded him as a driver — the first rung may be empty.
Rung 2 — The vehicle owner’s auto liability policy. If the pickup was owned by someone other than the driver — a parent, a family member — the owner’s policy may provide coverage. This is the policy that the negligent entrustment claim reaches. The owner’s policy may carry higher limits, and it may include an umbrella or excess policy that sits on top.
Rung 3 — A household or family policy. If the driver was a resident relative of the vehicle owner, the household policy may provide coverage even if the driver was not specifically listed. Texas law on resident-relative coverage is fact-specific, but the household policy is a rung that must be investigated.
Rung 4 — A commercial policy. If the driver was working at the time of the crash — driving a work vehicle, performing job duties, or operating within the course and scope of employment — the employer’s commercial auto policy may apply. At 2 a.m. on an overnight crash, employment is less likely, but if the pickup bore commercial plates or the driver was performing work-related tasks, this rung becomes central.
Rung 5 — The fuel tanker carrier’s HAZMAT coverage. The tanker carrier’s insurance is governed by federal financial responsibility minimums — at least $1,000,000 for hazardous materials, potentially $5,000,000 for certain hazardous substances in bulk. If the tanker driver was injured, the carrier’s workers’ compensation coverage and liability coverage become central to the damages profile. If the carrier has a claim against the at-fault driver for property damage to the tanker, the carrier becomes a co-plaintiff with its own coverage in play.
Rung 6 — UM/UIM coverage. If the at-fault driver was uninsured or underinsured, the injured party’s own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage may bridge the gap. UM/UIM coverage in Texas is contractual and stacks on top of the at-fault policy up to the UM/UIM limits. The tanker driver’s personal auto policy, the building owner’s commercial policy, or any other affected party’s coverage may contain UM/UIM provisions that apply.
Rung 7 — Excess and umbrella policies. The vehicle owner’s umbrella, a business policy if the building owner carried commercial property coverage with liability provisions, and any excess coverage attached to the policies above. These are the policies that the insurance company does not volunteer. They are discovered through demands, depositions, and discovery.
Here is the killer takeaway: the same crash, with the same facts, can be worth $75,000 against a minimally insured 19-year-old or $5,000,000+ against a vehicle owner with an umbrella policy and a HAZMAT carrier with $5,000,000 in federal coverage. The difference is not the facts. The difference is the investigation. And the investigation begins the day you call — because the insurance information that confirms which rungs exist is itself perishable, as policies change, carriers reissue, and evidence of coverage at the time of the crash can become harder to pin down with every passing month.
For more on how we pursue every available coverage source in commercial and passenger vehicle crashes, see our car accident lawyer practice page.
What This Case Is Worth: Honest Valuation
We do not guarantee outcomes. We do not promise numbers. What we do is give you the honest framework for what cases like this are worth, based on the damages categories that Texas law recognizes and the collectibility realities that affect every claim.
Property Damage Claims — $75,000 to $750,000+
The building owner’s damages include:
– Structural repair costs — steel beam replacement, northwest corner reconstruction, structural stabilization engineering, and building code compliance work. A destroyed steel support beam is not a patch job. It is a structural engineering project that requires shoring, removal, fabrication, and installation — plus the work to ensure the surrounding structure remains sound during the repair.
– Business interruption losses — the sales offices are off-limits. The revenue those offices generate, the wages of the employees who cannot work in that space, the cost of temporary office space, and the lost productivity during the repair period are all recoverable economic damages.
– Temporary security measures — the security fence and exit gate were destroyed. The building’s security perimeter is compromised. Temporary fencing, security personnel, and access control measures are recoverable costs.
– Engineering and stabilization — before any repair can begin, the structure must be stabilized. Shoring, bracing, and engineering assessments are recoverable.
– Fence, light pole, and window replacement — the physical damage to the security fence, the downed light pole, and the broken window are line items in the property damage claim.
Personal Injury Claims — $500,000 to $5,000,000+
If the tanker driver or any other person sustained injuries — and the article’s focus on building employees does not foreclose this possibility — the damages profile expands significantly:
– Medical expenses — emergency transport, emergency department evaluation, imaging, surgical intervention if needed, hospitalization, medication, and follow-up care
– Lost wages — time away from work during recovery
– Lost earning capacity — if the injuries affect future earning ability
– Pain and suffering — the physical and emotional toll of the injury
– Mental anguish — the psychological impact of being in a fuel tanker that was shoved into a building, including the fear of fire or explosion
– Punitive damages — capped under Texas law but scaling with the proven economic loss, as discussed in the Punitive Damages section
The Collectibility Factor
The at-fault driver is 19 with pending criminal charges. His personal coverage may be minimal. This is why the defendant map — the vehicle owner, the dram shop defendant, the employer, the HAZMAT carrier’s coverage — is not a luxury. It is the difference between a case that covers the beam replacement and a case that covers everything. Collectibility is the primary deflator on this case, and the defendant identification work is the primary inflator.
For our broader treatment of how commercial vehicle crash values are built — from the coverage floor through the life-care plan — see our 18-wheeler accidents page.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook: What They Do and How to Counter Every Move
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm. He sat in the rooms where claims like yours are priced. He knows the software — Colossus, the reserve-setting process, the IME doctor selection, the surveillance, the delay tactics — from the inside. Here is what the insurance industry does in cases like this, and here is how to counter every move.
Play 1 — The Friendly “Just Checking In” Call
Within days of the crash, someone from the at-fault driver’s insurance company will call. The voice will be warm. The tone will be concerned. The ask will be small: “Can you just tell us what happened?” or “We just need a recorded statement for our file.” Here is what that call actually is: a recorded statement engineered to get you to say things that will be quoted against you later. “I’m feeling okay” becomes “the claimant reported no injuries.” “I think the tanker was already in the road” becomes “the claimant admitted comparative fault.” The counter is simple: do not give a recorded statement without legal representation. You have no obligation to. The adjuster is not your friend. The adjuster is a professional whose job is to close your claim for the smallest number possible.
Play 2 — The Fast Check With a Release Attached
A check may arrive quickly — sometimes within the first two weeks. It will look like help. It will come with a release — a document that, once signed, settles your claim and bars you from seeking anything more. The check is designed to arrive before the structural engineering report is complete, before the business interruption is fully quantified, before the tanker driver’s injuries are diagnosed, and before the defendant map is built. The counter: do not sign anything from any insurance company without a lawyer reviewing it. A release signed in the first weeks of a case involving a destroyed steel support beam is a document that costs you multiples of what the check is worth.
Play 3 — The Low Reserve Set in the First 48 Hours
Before the real damages are known, the adjuster sets a reserve — the amount the insurance company internally allocates to pay the claim. That reserve influences every subsequent negotiation. If the reserve is set low in the first 48 hours — before the engineering report, before the business interruption is calculated, before the tanker driver’s MRI results come back — the adjuster’s negotiating range is anchored to that low number. The counter: the first demand we make is built from the full damages picture — the engineering report, the business interruption analysis, the medical records, the life-care plan if injuries are confirmed — and it is designed to re-anchor the reserve to the real number, not the early one.
Play 4 — The IME Doctor They Pick
If personal injuries are claimed, the insurance company will demand an Independent Medical Examination — except it is not independent. The doctor is selected by the insurer, paid by the insurer, and used by the insurer to produce a report that minimizes or denies the injury. The counter: the IME is not the final word. The treating physician’s records, the diagnostic imaging, and the clinical findings carry weight that a defense-hired IME cannot overcome when the evidence is real. But the IME report must be countered with specific medical evidence, not general protest.
Play 5 — Social Media and Surveillance Watch
The insurance company will monitor social media accounts. They will look for photos of physical activity, posts about feeling fine, check-ins at locations that suggest mobility. They may conduct physical surveillance. The counter: assume you are being watched from the day the claim is filed. Do not post about the crash, your injuries, your activities, or your case. Do not discuss the case online. A single photo taken out of context can undermine a legitimate injury claim.
Play 6 — The “We Need More Time” Delay Aimed at the Statute
Texas imposes a two-year statute of limitations on both personal injury and property damage claims. The insurance company knows this. The delay strategy — requests for more documentation, extensions to evaluate the claim, “we need additional investigation” — is designed to run the clock toward the limitations deadline, at which point the claim is barred. The counter: the statute of limitations is a hard deadline, not a suggestion. The case must be filed before it expires. The timeline is tracked from the day you engage counsel, and the filing is calendared with margin.
Play 7 — The “You Were Partly at Fault” Shift
The adjuster will look for any fact that supports shifting percentage points of fault onto the claimant — the tanker driver’s positioning, the building’s proximity to the road, the speed of any vehicle involved. Every percentage point is money subtracted under Texas’s comparative negligence system. The counter: the evidence — the surveillance footage, the EDR data, the crash report, the reconstruction — establishes the fault picture. The adjuster’s suggestions are not evidence. They are negotiation tactics, and they fail when the proof is preserved and the liability narrative is clean.
For a broader look at how we counter insurer tactics in DWI-related crashes, see our DWI/DUI practice page.
The Proof Story: How a Case Like This Is Actually Built
Here is how a case like the Amarillo fuel tanker crash is built, from the day you call to the day the number is reached. This is not a summary. It is the walk.
Week One — Preservation. The preservation letters go out. One to the ABC 7 station, demanding retention of all surveillance footage. One to the tow yard, demanding that the pickup truck be held and not released, repaired, or destroyed. One to the fuel tanker carrier, demanding retention of the ELD data, GPS records, driver qualification files, and the vehicle itself for EDR download. One to the cell carrier, demanding preservation of call detail records. One to any establishment identified through the dram shop investigation, demanding retention of surveillance footage, receipts, and server records. Every letter creates a legal duty to retain. Every letter creates consequences for destruction. This is the evidence freeze.
Weeks Two Through Four — Document Collection. The police crash report is obtained from Amarillo PD. The DPS crash report is obtained for the commercial vehicle data. The tanker carrier is identified through the crash report, DOT records, and scene photographs. The registered owner of the pickup is identified through DMV records. The at-fault driver’s prior court records — the DWI, drug, and gun charges — are obtained in certified form. The structural engineering assessment is commissioned. The building repair estimates are obtained. The business interruption analysis begins.
Weeks Four Through Eight — Expert Deployment. The accident reconstruction expert downloads the EDR data from both vehicles and builds the crash sequence — speed, braking, steering, impact forces, and the vector that propelled the tanker into the building. The structural engineer documents the beam failure, the building’s compromised integrity, and the repair specifications. If personal injuries are confirmed, the treating physicians’ records are collected, and a life-care planner may be engaged to project the long-term cost of care.
Months Two Through Six — Discovery and Depositions. The lawsuit is filed in Potter County. Written discovery goes out — interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission. The defendants produce their insurance policies, their driver qualification files, their corporate records. Depositions are taken: the vehicle owner under oath about what they knew of the driver’s history; the tanker driver about the crash sequence; the at-fault driver, if he has been apprehended, about his conduct and his state of mind; the establishment’s servers, if a dram shop claim is pursued, about what they observed and what they served.
Months Six Through Twelve — The Number Is Built. The economic damages are quantified: structural repairs, business interruption, medical expenses, lost wages, future care. The noneconomic damages are framed: pain, anguish, the disruption of life and business. The punitive damages predicate is built from the prior charges, the flight, and the conscious indifference. The demand is formulated — and if the insurance company’s response does not meet the proven value, the case proceeds toward trial.
The Stowers Evaluation. Once all defendants are mapped and damages are quantified, a settlement demand at or near the policy limits may trigger the insurer’s duty to settle under Texas’s Stowers doctrine — the principle that an insurer who rejects a reasonable settlement demand within policy limits may be liable for the full judgment, even if it exceeds those limits. This is a powerful leverage point, particularly against a vehicle owner’s excess coverage. The demand must be carefully crafted — it must be within the policy limits, it must be reasonable given the evidence, and it must give the insurer a reasonable time to respond. When the conditions are met and the demand is rejected, the insurer’s own money is at risk above the policy limits, and the negotiating dynamic changes fundamentally.
Mediation should be deferred until the criminal case against the at-fault driver resolves or produces usable admissions, and until the dram shop investigation is complete. Mediating too early — before the defendant map is built and the damages are quantified — is a gift to the insurance company.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do Right Now
Whether you are the building owner, the tanker driver, a family member, or a business affected by the closure of the sales offices, here is what the first 72 hours look like.
Hour 1 Through 24 — Medical First. If you were in the tanker or anywhere near the crash, get a full medical evaluation — even if you feel fine. High-impact collision injuries often have delayed onset. The adrenaline of the moment masks pain. The headache that starts tomorrow may be a closed-head injury. The stiffness in your neck may be a cervical strain that worsens over 48 hours. The numbness in your arm may be a spinal injury. Go to the emergency department. Tell them exactly what happened. Let them image, test, and document. The medical record created in the first 24 hours is evidence — and a gap between the crash and the first medical visit is a gap the insurance company will exploit.
Hour 1 Through 48 — Document Everything. Photograph the building damage before any repairs begin. Photograph the vehicles. Photograph the scene — the fence debris, the downed light pole, the broken window, the tire marks, the fluid spills. Save every receipt. Track every hour of business interruption. Keep a journal of what you observe, what hurts, and what changes day by day. The physical evidence of this crash will be repaired, cleaned up, and erased within days. The photographs and the journal are the record that survives.
Hour 1 Through 72 — Do Not Speak to Adjusters. Do not give a recorded statement. Do not sign a release. Do not accept a check. Do not post about the crash on social media. Do not discuss the case with anyone except your lawyer and your doctor. The insurance adjuster’s call is not a courtesy — it is evidence collection. Every word you say will be transcribed, parsed, and used to minimize your claim. The counter to every insurer play in the playbook above begins with silence — and with representation.
Hour 1 Through 72 — Preserve the Evidence. If you are the building owner, do not erase the surveillance footage. If you are the tanker carrier, do not release or repair the vehicle. If you are the tow yard holding the pickup, do not release it without a release order from the investigating agency or counsel. If you are any party, send or request preservation letters immediately. The footage overwrites. The EDR data can be lost. The records have finite retention windows. The day you call a lawyer is the day the preservation letters go out — and the day the evidence clock starts working for you instead of against you.
Potential Injuries: What the Tanker Driver and Others Need to Know
The article reports that no building employees were injured — and that is a blessing attributable to the overnight timing. But the tanker driver’s status was not addressed. If the tanker driver was in the cab when the pickup struck it and propelled it through a security fence and into a building, the injury mechanism is significant.
The Mechanism
A fuel tanker cab is a commercial vehicle compartment — heavier and higher than a passenger car, but not immune to the forces of a high-energy impact. When a pickup strikes a tanker with enough force to propel it through a fence and into a steel support beam, the energy transfer through the cab is substantial. The driver experiences acceleration forces, deceleration forces against the seatbelt and steering column, and potential secondary impacts from cab intrusion or cargo shift.
The Injuries
- Cervical spine injuries — the whiplash mechanism of sudden acceleration followed by sudden deceleration can cause cervical strain, herniated discs, or more severe spinal injury. The symptoms may not appear for 24 to 48 hours.
- Head injuries — the driver’s head may strike the window, the headrest, or the interior of the cab. A “mild” traumatic brain injury can present with a normal CT scan but real cognitive symptoms — headaches, memory disruption, difficulty concentrating, irritability. These injuries are proven with neuropsychological testing and the testimony of people who knew the person before.
- Thoracic and abdominal injuries — the seatbelt distributes force across the chest and abdomen. Rib fractures, pulmonary contusions, and intra-abdominal injuries are possible in high-energy impacts.
- Extremity injuries — the driver’s legs may strike the dashboard or floorboard. Knee injuries, tibial fractures, and foot injuries are common in commercial vehicle crashes.
- Psychological trauma — being in a fuel tanker that is shoved into a building carries the specific fear of fire and explosion. The psychological impact — post-traumatic stress, anxiety, driving phobia — is real, compensable, and often overlooked by the insurance company.
The Proof Problem
The insurance company will argue that the injuries are pre-existing, that the symptoms are exaggerated, or that the gap between the crash and the first medical visit proves the injuries are not crash-related. The counter is the same as in every commercial vehicle case: the medical record created in the first 24 hours, the diagnostic imaging, the treating physician’s clinical findings, and the testimony of people who knew the driver before the crash and observed the changes after. The proof is built from the medicine, not from the adjuster’s opinion.
For more on how we handle the medical side of catastrophic injury cases, see our brain injuries practice page.
Potter County Courts and Your Jury
The civil case arising from this crash will be filed in Potter County — where the crash occurred, where the building sits, and where the defendants can be found. Potter County courts handle a steady volume of commercial vehicle and DWI-related civil cases. The judges are experienced with the dynamics of hit-and-run collisions, commercial vehicle regulations, and the insurance issues that accompany them.
Potter County juries tend to be conservative — but they are responsive to clear liability narratives. A hit-and-run driver who fled the scene after destroying a building is not a sympathetic defendant in any county, and Potter County is no exception. A driver with documented prior DWI, drug, and gun charges who got behind the wheel again and caused this kind of destruction is a defendant whose conduct a Potter County jury can punish — not because the jury is eager to award money, but because the conduct is clear, the harm is visible, and the community understands the dangers of impaired driving on the roads they share.
The voir dire process — jury selection — should explore jurors’ attitudes toward hit-and-run drivers, repeat DWI offenders, and commercial vehicle safety. Amarillo is a community where commercial trucking is understood. The people who live here drive the same corridors as the tankers. They know what a fuel tanker looks like on the road. They understand the danger. That understanding is an advantage in the courtroom when the liability story is told clearly and the evidence is preserved.
The building’s proximity to the traffic lane is a factor the defense may raise — arguing the premises contributed to the extent of the damage. But a vehicle that leaves the roadway and strikes a building is the driver’s fault, not the building’s, and a Potter County jury is likely to see it that way when the evidence is presented.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the building owner sue the at-fault driver for the structural damage?
Yes. The building owner has a property damage claim against the at-fault driver for all costs associated with the structural damage — the destroyed steel support beam, the broken window, the demolished security fence, the downed light pole, and the sales offices rendered unusable. The claim also includes business interruption losses for the revenue and productivity lost while the offices are off-limits. The building owner can also pursue the vehicle owner under a negligent entrustment theory if someone other than the driver owned the pickup, and any dram shop defendant if the driver was overserved. The two-year statute of limitations for property damage claims in Texas runs from the date of the crash, so the claim must be filed within that window.
Can the fuel tanker driver sue the pickup driver?
Yes. If the tanker driver was injured — and the article does not address this either way — the tanker driver has a personal injury claim against the at-fault pickup driver for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and potentially punitive damages given the documented DWI pattern and hit-and-run conduct. The tanker driver may also have a workers’ compensation claim through the carrier, but workers’ compensation does not bar a third-party claim against the at-fault driver. The tanker driver should seek a full medical evaluation even if asymptomatic, as high-impact collision injuries often have delayed onset.
What if the at-fault driver has no insurance or minimal coverage?
This is the most common concern in cases involving young drivers with criminal histories — and it is exactly why the defendant map is critical. The at-fault driver’s personal coverage may be minimal, but the vehicle owner’s policy, a household policy, a commercial policy if the driver was working, a dram shop defendant’s liquor liability coverage, and the injured party’s own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage are all potential sources of recovery. The case is not limited to what the at-fault driver can pay out of pocket. It is limited by what coverage exists across all liable parties — and finding that coverage is the work.
How long do I have to file a lawsuit?
Texas imposes a two-year statute of limitations on both personal injury and property damage claims, running from the date of the incident. This means the lawsuit must be filed within two years of the crash date. There are limited exceptions, but none that you should rely on without consulting a lawyer. The statute of limitations is a hard deadline — miss it, and the claim is barred permanently. But the evidence preservation clock is much shorter — surveillance footage overwrites in 7 to 30 days, EDR data can be lost when vehicles are moved, and cell carrier records have finite retention windows. The day you call is the day both clocks start working for you.
What is negligent entrustment and does it apply here?
Negligent entrustment is a Texas cause of action that holds a vehicle owner liable for handing keys to a driver they knew or should have known was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless. The Texas Supreme Court established the five elements in Williams v. Steves Indus., Inc. In this case, if someone other than the 19-year-old at-fault driver owned the pickup — a parent, a family member, a friend — and they knew of his recent DWI and drug charges, they are a negligent entrustment defendant. Their insurance policy — which may carry higher limits or an umbrella — becomes a coverage source that the driver’s own policy may not be. This is often the difference between a case that covers the full damages and a case that covers a fraction.
Can a bar or restaurant be held liable if they served the driver?
Yes, under the Texas Dram Shop Act. If a provider sold or served alcohol to the 19-year-old driver when it was apparent that he was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others, and his intoxication was a proximate cause of the crash, the provider is civilly liable. Serving a 19-year-old at all is a violation, and serving an obviously intoxicated person of any age triggers the dram shop cause of action. The investigation requires toxicology results, receipts, surveillance footage from the establishment, and server testimony. The notice and evidentiary requirements under the statute are specific, which is why early investigation is critical.
What should I do if the insurance company already called me?
Do not give a recorded statement. Do not sign anything. Do not accept a check. Be polite, but say: “I am not ready to discuss the case. I will contact you when I am ready.” Then call a lawyer. The adjuster’s call is evidence collection — every word you say will be transcribed and used to minimize your claim. You have no legal obligation to give a recorded statement to the at-fault party’s insurance company. The only statement that helps you is the one made with legal representation ensuring that your words are not taken out of context.
What if the at-fault driver has not been arrested yet?
The criminal case and the civil case are separate. The at-fault driver’s failure to surrender does not prevent the civil claim from proceeding. His admission to driving is evidence. The crash report is evidence. The physical evidence is evidence. The civil case does not wait for the criminal case to resolve — though the criminal case, when it does resolve, may produce admissions, toxicology results, and plea colloquy that strengthen the civil claim. The statute of limitations runs regardless of the criminal case status, so the civil case must be filed within two years of the crash date whether or not the driver has been apprehended.
Is the fuel tanker company also responsible?
The fuel tanker appears to be a victim vehicle — struck by the pickup and propelled into the building — rather than the primary at-fault instrumentality. However, the tanker carrier is a potential co-plaintiff with its own property damage and driver-injury claims, and the carrier’s HAZMAT insurance coverage — at least $1,000,000 and potentially $5,000,000 under federal financial responsibility requirements — is a significant factor in the overall case. If any aspect of the tanker driver’s positioning, reaction, or route contributed to the outcome, the carrier could be a contribution defendant. The carrier’s role is determined through the crash report, DPS records, ELD data, and the accident reconstruction.
How much does a lawyer cost for a case like this?
We work on contingency. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. The first consultation is free. We advance the costs of the case — preservation letters, expert fees, filing fees, deposition costs — and those costs are repaid from the recovery. If there is no recovery, you do not owe us attorney’s fees. This is not charity — it is alignment. We only win when you win, which means every case we take gets the full weight of our resources and our fight.
Should I talk to my own insurance company about the crash?
You should notify your own insurance company that the crash occurred — but you should not give a detailed recorded statement without legal representation, even to your own carrier. Your own insurer may seem like an ally, but every insurance company — including yours — evaluates claims through the lens of minimizing payout. If you have UM/UIM coverage that may apply, the claim must be presented properly, and the insurer’s obligations under Texas law must be enforced. A lawyer ensures that your own insurer treats the claim fairly and does not use your statement to limit your coverage.
Why Attorney911
Ralph Manginello has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — which means he learned early that the truth is the most powerful weapon in any fight, and that the story that wins is the one built from facts that hold up under cross-examination. He is admitted to the State Bar of Texas (Bar #24007597, licensed November 6, 1998) and the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas. He is the managing partner of The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, and he leads the active $10M+ hazing lawsuit in Harris County — a case that, like this one, turns on whether the people who had the power to stop dangerous conduct chose to allow it instead.
Lupe Peña is a former insurance-defense attorney. He spent years inside a national defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like you. He knows how Colossus values a claim. He knows how reserves are set. He knows how the IME doctor is chosen. He knows the recorded-statement script and the fast-check-with-a-release strategy. He knows every play in the playbook because he ran those plays from the other side. Now he runs them for you. He is fluent in Spanish — he conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter — and we say that with pride, because serving a family in the language they actually think in is not a courtesy. It is the job.
The firm has recovered $50,000,000+ in aggregate (a firm marketing figure). That includes a $5M+ brain-injury settlement, a $3.8M+ amputation settlement, a $2.5M+ truck-crash recovery, and a $2M+ maritime back-injury settlement. We say these numbers not to impress you but to tell you the truth about what we do: we take cases that insurance companies want to close for fractions of their value, and we build them into cases that pay what they are actually worth. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But the method does not change: the preservation letters go out immediately, the evidence is frozen, the defendant map is built, the proof story is constructed from the records, and the demand is built from the full damages picture — not the insurance company’s first estimate.
We are not the counsel of record on the ABC 7 building crash. We have not been retained by the building owner, the tanker driver, or any party to this incident. This page is legal information and resource guidance for anyone affected by a crash like this one in Amarillo and Potter County. If you are facing this situation — whether it is this specific crash or one like it — the information on this page is the education, the governing law, the evidence clocks, and the honest case-value framework you need to make the right decisions. And when you are ready to have someone fight for you, the number is 1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. We serve your family fully in Spanish. Hablamos Español.
The preservation letter goes out the day you call. The evidence clock does not wait. And neither do we.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. Or contact us through our website. Ralph Manginello and Lupe Peña will talk to you personally — in English or in Spanish — about what happened, what it is worth, and what to do next. The first conversation costs nothing. And if we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you — because the truth is the only thing we sell.