When a Fraternity Tortures Your Child and Calls It Tradition — Austin Hazing Wrongful Death Lawyers
You sent your son to the University of Texas at Austin. He joined a fraternity. And what happened to him inside that house — the fishhooks, the cigarette burns, the staple gun, the beatings, the drugs handed to him on the last day of his life — was not brotherhood. It was torture, and it was preventable. The parents of Sawyer Lee Updike have filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Travis County against Sigma Chi International Fraternity, the local Alpha Nu chapter, the House Corporation that owned the building where it happened, and five individual members who participated. We are writing this page because what happened to this family can happen to any family that sends a child into Greek life at a Texas university — and because the law gives you weapons most parents never knew existed.
Our firm is The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC — Attorney911. Ralph Manginello, our managing partner, earned his undergraduate degree from UT Austin and is currently lead counsel in an active $10M+ hazing lawsuit against Pi Kappa Phi at the University of Houston. We know Texas hazing law. We know what the fraternities do, what the insurance companies try to hide, and what evidence disappears first. If your family is facing a hazing death or hazing injury at any Texas university, call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free, and we do not get paid unless we win your case. Hablamos Español.
What Happened at Sigma Chi at UT Austin — The Allegations in the Lawsuit
According to the wrongful death complaint filed in November 2025, Sawyer Lee Updike joined the Texas Alpha Nu chapter of Sigma Chi in 2023. During his pledging period and beyond, the lawsuit alleges he was subjected to a campaign of sadistic physical and psychological abuse that included:
- Being speared with a fishhook
- Being burned with lit cigarettes
- Being pierced in the hip with a staple gun
- Enduring physical beatings
- Being forced to consume dangerous amounts of alcohol
- Being coerced into using illegal narcotics
- Being threatened that fraternity members would have sexual relations with his girlfriend if he did not attend a fraternity event
On the day he died in January 2024, the lawsuit alleges that Updike went to the fraternity house where members gave him cocaine and psilocybin mushrooms. This worsened what the complaint describes as an acute psychological crisis. He left the house, drove to a convenience store, and took his own life.
The chapter had a documented history of hazing violations before this death. In 2022, UT placed the chapter on disciplinary probation for alcohol misconduct and hazing new members through “actions intended to demean.” In 2024, the University sanctioned the chapter with deferred suspension after charging them with hazing the fall 2024 pledge class. In May 2025, Sigma Chi International Headquarters closed the UT chapter. In July 2025, the chapter renamed itself “Alpha Nu” in a social media post — a rebranding that speaks for itself.
“I want every parent of a college-bound child to understand the risks that can be hidden behind Greek letters and long-standing traditions. If speaking out saves even one family from this kind of heartbreak, then Sawyer’s light will continue to shine in this world.”
Those are the words of Sawyer’s mother, Sheryl Roberts-Updike. She is right. And the law agrees with her — these risks were not hidden from the people who ran the fraternity. They were documented, warned about, and ignored.
The Texas Hazing Act — Your Right to Sue When a Fraternity Tortures Your Child
Texas has a specific statute designed for exactly this situation. The Texas Hazing Act, found in Texas Education Code Chapter 37, creates both criminal penalties and civil liability for hazing. Hazing under Texas law is not limited to any single act — it encompasses any intentional, knowing, or reckless act by one person against a student for the purpose of pledging, joining, or maintaining membership in an organization, that endangers the mental or physical health of the student.
The physical abuse alleged here — fishhooks, burns, staple guns, beatings — fits squarely within the statutory definition of hazing. But Texas hazing law goes further than just the physical acts. The coercion into illegal drug use, the threats against his girlfriend, the forced alcohol consumption — each is a separate act that the statute reaches. And when hazing results in serious bodily injury or death, the criminal exposure escalates significantly.
For the family’s civil case, the Texas Hazing Act provides the foundation: a person who suffers personal injury or death as a result of hazing may sue for damages. The parents, as statutory beneficiaries under the Texas Wrongful Death Act (Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 71), have the right to recover for the loss of their son — his companionship, his guidance, the mental anguish of losing a child, and the economic losses that flow from his death.
The lawsuit also asserts a survival action — a separate claim brought by the estate for everything Sawyer endured before he died. The conscious pain and suffering of being burned with cigarettes, pierced with a staple gun, speared with a fishhook, beaten, threatened, drugged, and driven into a psychological crisis are all compensable. The terror he experienced in his final hours — from the drug-induced crisis to the moment at the convenience store — is compensable. This is not one claim. It is two: one for the family, one for what Sawyer went through.
The Defendants — Four Layers of a Corporate Shield Designed to Protect the Deep Pocket
A fraternity wrongful death case is not a single defendant. It is a stack of entities, each designed to insulate the others. The complaint in this case names four layers, and understanding each one is the difference between a real recovery and an empty judgment.
Sigma Chi International Fraternity is the national organization. It sets the policies. It collects dues. It claims to supervise its chapters. It had actual knowledge of the 2022 probation and the 2024 hazing charges at the UT chapter. The International’s defense will be that the local chapter is an autonomous affiliate it does not control. Our answer: the International’s own disciplinary records show it knew, and knowledge creates a duty to act. The International failed to shut the chapter down until May 2025 — more than a year after Sawyer’s death.
The Alpha Nu Chapter is the local student organization. Its members committed the acts. Its officers allowed the hazing to continue. The chapter itself — as an entity — is directly liable for the acts of its members in furtherance of chapter activities. Pledging is a chapter function. The hazing occurred within the chapter’s structure. The chapter’s rebranding as “Alpha Nu” after being closed does not erase its legal exposure for what happened while it operated as Sigma Chi.
The Alpha Nu House Corporation is the entity that owns and manages the fraternity house. This is the premises-liability defendant. The hazing occurred on property it controlled. The drugs were provided on its premises. Under Texas premises law, a property owner who knows or should know of dangerous illegal activities on its property and fails to act is liable for the harm that follows. The House Corporation’s insurance — separate premises liability coverage — may be the most accessible money in the case, because it is more likely to respond to a negligence theory (failure to supervise the property, failure to prevent illegal drug use on premises) than the International’s CGL policy, which likely contains hazing and criminal-acts exclusions.
Five individual members are named as direct tortfeasors. They committed assault and battery. They provided illegal controlled substances. Under the Texas Controlled Substances Act, providing cocaine and psilocybin to another person is a crime — and when that provision contributes to a death, it is the civil analogue of a drug-delivery liability theory. These individuals may seek coverage under their parents’ homeowners insurance, but “intentional acts” exclusions will be the carrier’s first line of defense. Our answer: the drug provision can be framed as negligence, not just intentional tort — and negligent provision of controlled substances to a person in a known psychological crisis is a breach of duty independent of any intentional-tort exclusion.
The Superseding Cause Defense — How Fraternities Try to Escape Responsibility for a Suicide
The defense’s single most powerful argument in any hazing-death-by-suicide case is this: the suicide was an independent, intervening act that breaks the chain of causation. The fraternity did not make him do it. The drugs did not make him do it. He made a choice, they will argue, and that choice is his own — not theirs.
This is the fight that decides the case. And it is a fight we know how to win.
Texas follows a modified comparative negligence rule — a 51% bar. The plaintiff can recover as long as the decedent was not more than 50% responsible for his own death. The defense will pour everything into pushing that percentage past 50 — arguing that the suicide was the decedent’s own act, that he had pre-existing mental health conditions, that the fraternity’s conduct was not the “proximate cause” because suicide is, as a matter of law, an independent intervening force.
Our counter runs through a forensic psychiatrist who testifies on drug-induced psychosis. Here is the mechanism: cocaine is a powerful central nervous system stimulant that can trigger acute psychiatric crises — paranoia, severe agitation, suicidal ideation — especially in a person already in a state of psychological deterioration from prolonged abuse. Psilocybin, a hallucinogen, can produce acute dissociative states and exacerbate underlying psychological distress. When you combine cocaine and psilocybin and give them to a young man who has spent months being tortured — burned, pierced, beaten, threatened — the resulting crisis is not a random act. It is the foreseeable culmination of a campaign of abuse that was designed to break him down.
The defense will argue the suicide was not foreseeable. Our answer: the fraternity made it foreseeable. You cannot torture a person for months, drug him on the day of his death, and then claim you had no reason to think he might break. The Texas standard for proximate cause asks whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct. A psychological crisis leading to self-harm, in a person you have been psychologically and physically abusing, is foreseeable. The drugs were the accelerant. The hazing was the fire. The fire was set by the fraternity.
The Evidence Clock — What Exists, Who Holds It, and How Fast It Dies
This is the block that decides whether the case is winnable or already lost. The evidence in a hazing death case is the most perishable evidence in any case type we handle — because the participants are young, the communications are digital, and the instinct to delete is overwhelming.
GroupMe and text message logs are the single most critical evidence in any hazing case. GroupMe is the standard group-chat platform used by fraternity pledge classes. The messages between pledges, between pledges and active members, between the pledge educator and the pledge class — these prove the premeditation of hazing rituals, identify who participated, and establish the timeline. They can be deleted by any participant. When phones are replaced, lost, or intentionally wiped, those messages are gone. The preservation demand must go out immediately — not to the fraternity, but to every individual member, every pledge, and to GroupMe’s parent company if necessary. This evidence has a clock measured in days, not months.
The fraternity’s “Black Book,” pledge manual, or ritual documents establish the tradition of hazing — proving this was not a rogue act by five members but an institutional practice known to the chapter and, by extension, to the International organization. Physical documents can be destroyed in minutes. A preservation letter to the House Corporation and the chapter’s current leadership, sent the day you call a lawyer, is the only protection.
Security footage from the West Campus area and the convenience store establishes the timeline of Sawyer’s movements and his state of mind on the day of his death. West Campus — the neighborhood just west of UT’s campus where Fraternity Row and most Greek houses sit — has a mix of private surveillance cameras on fraternity properties, street-level cameras, and commercial cameras at businesses. Most surveillance systems overwrite on a rolling cycle of 7 to 30 days. The convenience store footage, which may show Sawyer’s condition in his final minutes, is the most time-sensitive evidence of all. Every day that passes without a preservation demand is a day closer to that footage being legally erased.
The toxicology and autopsy report from the medical examiner is already secured — it is not going to disappear. But it requires expert analysis. A forensic toxicologist must interpret the cocaine and psilocybin levels, the timing of ingestion relative to the psychological crisis, and the interaction between the two substances. The autopsy report alone does not connect the drugs to the crisis — an expert does.
University disciplinary records show the fraternity was a repeat offender. The 2022 probation, the 2024 deferred suspension — these are the documents that prove the International organization had notice. They are protected by FERPA, but they are discoverable through a subpoena in civil litigation. The University of Texas at Austin’s own records on this chapter are a map of institutional knowledge that the fraternity’s national organization cannot deny.
The Insurance Reality — Where the Money Is, and Where the Doors Are Closing
Greek organizations carry specialized insurance, and the coverage landscape is a minefield. Here is what we know about how these towers are built, and where the fights will be.
Sigma Chi International Fraternity likely maintains a high-limit Commercial General Liability policy through a specialized insurer or risk retention group that caters to Greek organizations. These policies frequently contain hazing exclusions and criminal acts exclusions — meaning the insurer’s first move will be to deny coverage by arguing the conduct was excluded. Our counter: the drug provision theory — that members negligently provided illegal substances — may fall outside the criminal-acts exclusion if framed as negligent rather than intentional. And the International’s own failure to supervise, despite documented notice of prior violations, is a negligence theory that may not trigger the hazing exclusion at all.
The Alpha Nu House Corporation typically carries separate premises liability insurance for the physical property. This is potentially the most accessible coverage. If we can prove the House Corporation knew or should have known about the drug use and hazing on its property and failed to act, the premises policy may respond. Premises liability is a negligence theory — and negligence theories are more likely to find coverage than intentional-tort theories.
Individual members may seek coverage under their parents’ homeowners insurance policies, including personal liability umbrellas. The “intentional acts” exclusion is the primary hurdle — most homeowners policies exclude coverage for intentional or expected injuries. But if the drug provision is framed as negligent — a member gave drugs to someone in a known crisis without considering the consequences — there may be a coverage path. Each individual’s policy must be examined separately.
The coverage tower in this case is likely stacked: the House Corporation’s premises policy at the base, the International’s CGL above it, and potentially individual policies scattered across five members’ families. Finding all the available coverage is its own investigation — and it is one Lupe Peña, who spent years on the insurance-defense side before joining our firm, is uniquely positioned to conduct. He knows how carriers set reserves, how they choose which exclusions to invoke, and where their delay tactics cross the line into bad faith — because he used to do it from the other side.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook — What They Will Try, and How We Counter
The fraternity’s insurance representatives and their defense lawyers are already at work. Here are the plays they are running right now, and the counter to each.
Play 1: The “independent contractor” dodge. The International will argue the local chapter is an autonomous affiliate, not an agent of the national organization — and therefore the International’s insurance does not respond. Counter: The International’s own disciplinary records — the 2022 probation, the 2024 charges — prove it had actual knowledge and a supervisory relationship. You do not get to claim ignorance of a chapter you put on probation. Knowledge plus the power to discipline equals a duty to act.
Play 2: The “suicide breaks the chain” argument. Defense counsel will file motions arguing the suicide was an independent intervening cause as a matter of law, entitling the fraternity to summary judgment. Counter: A forensic psychiatrist testifying on drug-induced psychosis, combined with the documented pattern of psychological abuse, establishes foreseeability. The question of proximate cause — whether the fraternity’s conduct was a substantial factor in producing the death — is for the jury, not the judge.
Play 3: The “he consented” defense. The fraternity will argue the pledge voluntarily submitted to hazing — that he chose to join, chose to stay, chose to participate. Counter: Texas hazing law explicitly rejects consent as a defense. The statute is built on the recognition that the power imbalance in pledging makes true consent impossible. A person being threatened with retaliation against his girlfriend is not consenting to anything.
Play 4: The quick settlement offer to the estate. The carrier may float a early, low-number settlement designed to close the case before the family has full information about the extent of the abuse, the pattern of prior violations, or the full insurance tower. Counter: No settlement discussion should occur until the toxicology is analyzed, the message logs are preserved, the University’s disciplinary records are subpoenaed, and every layer of coverage is identified. A Stowers demand — a formal settlement offer that, if rejected, can expose the insurer to liability above policy limits — should be issued only after the drug provision and physical abuse are substantiated in depositions.
Play 5: The “investigator” call. Someone may contact the family claiming to be investigating the death — but actually working for or paid by the fraternity’s insurer. Counter: The family should speak to no investigator, adjuster, or representative of any party without counsel present. Everything said will be recorded and used to reduce the claim. The first call from the family should be to us, not to anyone who says they are “just trying to understand what happened.”
The Damages — What This Case Is Worth, Honestly Framed
The forensic case file for this lawsuit describes a case value range of $3,000,000 to $15,000,000 or more. Here is how that number is built — and why it could go higher.
Economic damages include funeral and burial expenses, the loss of future earning capacity of a University of Texas student, and any medical or counseling costs incurred before death. A UT Austin graduate’s lifetime earning potential is substantial, and the forensic economist’s projection of lost earning capacity — built from worklife expectancy tables, education level, and career trajectory — is the economic foundation.
Non-economic damages in a wrongful death action include the parents’ mental anguish, loss of companionship, and loss of the parent-child relationship. Texas does not cap non-economic damages in general wrongful death cases (unlike medical malpractice, where Chapter 74 caps apply). A jury in Travis County — one of the most progressive, plaintiff-friendly venues in Texas — is likely to value the loss of a child to sadistic hazing substantially.
Survival damages cover Sawyer’s conscious pain and suffering before death. The physical torture — burns, piercings, beatings, fishhooks — and the psychological terror of the drug-induced crisis in his final hours are compensable. The defense will argue the suffering was not prolonged; the evidence of months of repeated abuse answers that.
Punitive damages are available under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 41 when the defendant acted with malice or gross negligence. The “sadistic” nature of the hazing, as described by the family’s complaint, supports a gross-negligence finding. Texas caps punitive damages at the greater of $200,000 or two times economic damages plus an amount equal to non-economic damages, up to $750,000. But the cap does not apply if the defendant’s conduct was “specifically intended to cause harm” — and a strong argument can be made that burning a person with cigarettes and piercing them with a staple gun during hazing reflects exactly that. The prior disciplinary history — the 2022 probation, the 2024 charges — supports a finding that the fraternity acted with conscious indifference to a known risk.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The range we describe is based on the specific facts alleged in this case, the venue, and the comparable landscape of hazing wrongful death litigation — not a prediction of what any jury will do.
The Proof Story — How a Hazing Wrongful Death Case Is Actually Built
Here is the chronological walk of how a case like this moves from the day a family calls to the day a number is on the table.
Week one: The preservation letter goes out — to the International fraternity, the local chapter, the House Corporation, every named individual member, the University, and every third-party platform (GroupMe, social media companies) that holds communications. The letter demands that all message logs, pledge manuals, surveillance footage, disciplinary records, financial records, and insurance policies be frozen. This is the single most time-sensitive step in the entire case. Evidence in a hazing case dies faster than in any other case type.
Weeks two through four: The toxicology and autopsy report is obtained from the medical examiner and sent to a forensic toxicologist for expert analysis. The University’s disciplinary records are subpoenaed. The 2022 and 2024 hazing violation records — already public on the University’s hazing-incident website — are pulled and certified. The House Corporation’s property records, insurance filings, and any prior incident reports at the house are demanded.
Months one through three: The defendant entities are served. The International fraternity’s corporate structure is mapped — the relationship between the national organization, the local chapter, the House Corporation, and any alumni advisory board. Insurance policies are demanded in discovery. The coverage tower is identified rung by rung. The individual members are deposed — under oath, one by one, about what happened in that house, who participated, who knew, and who provided the drugs.
Months three through six: Expert discovery. The forensic psychiatrist opines on drug-induced psychosis and the causal link between the hazing, the drug provision, and the suicide. The forensic toxicologist testifies on the interaction between cocaine and psilocybin. A life-care planner and forensic economist build the damages model — lost earning capacity, mental anguish, conscious pain and suffering.
Months six through twelve: The Stowers demand is issued to the primary and excess carriers once the drug provision and physical abuse are fully substantiated in depositions. If the carrier rejects a reasonable demand and the case later resolves for more than the policy limits, the carrier may be exposed beyond its limits — the leverage that drives serious settlements in catastrophic cases.
Trial: If the case does not resolve, Travis County juries have a documented history of holding institutions accountable for student-safety failures. The West Campus area, home to Fraternity Row, has been the site of multiple high-profile safety litigation matters that have shaped local jury expectations about Greek-life oversight. A jury of Travis County residents — many of them UT alumni, many with their own children at the university — will hear what happened in that fraternity house and decide what a young man’s life was worth.
The First 72 Hours — What a Family Must Do, and Must Not Do, Right Now
If you are reading this page because your child has been hurt or killed in a fraternity hazing incident at UT Austin or any Texas university, here is what matters most in the first 72 hours.
Do not speak to any investigator, insurance adjuster, or fraternity representative without a lawyer present. The fraternity’s insurer may send someone to your door within days. They may call themselves an “investigator” or say they are “just trying to understand what happened.” Everything you say will be recorded, transcribed, and used to reduce or deny your claim. The only call you should make is to a lawyer.
Do not post on social media. Anything the family posts — tributes, accusations, even expressions of grief — can be screenshotted and used by the defense to argue comparative fault, to challenge the family’s own account of events, or to minimize the damages. Silence is protection until counsel has secured the evidence.
Demand evidence preservation in writing. If your child is deceased, the fraternity house, the phones of the members, the GroupMe chats, the surveillance cameras — all of it is on a deletion clock. The preservation letter we send the day you call us is the only thing that converts routine deletion into sanctionable spoliation. If the fraternity destroys evidence after receiving our letter, a jury can be told to assume the worst about what was destroyed.
Do not sign anything. No release, no waiver, no acknowledgment, no settlement offer — nothing. Any document placed in front of you by the fraternity, its insurer, or its lawyer is designed to limit or eliminate your right to recover. Do not sign it. Bring it to us.
Secure your child’s phone, laptop, and accounts. Your child’s own communications — text messages, GroupMe logs, social media direct messages, photos — are the most personal evidence in the case. If the phone is passcode-protected, do not attempt to bypass it. Preserve it as-is and bring it to counsel. The data on that device is a timeline of what was happening to your child inside the fraternity.
Obtain the autopsy and toxicology report. If your child’s death is under investigation by a medical examiner, the autopsy and toxicology reports will be generated as part of that process. These reports are the medical foundation of the case. We will obtain them, but if the family already has them, bring them to the first consultation.
The Medicine — What Cocaine and Psilocybin Do to a Mind Under Siege
The medical reality of what happened on the day Sawyer died is the core of the causation fight. Understanding it — and being able to explain it to a jury — is what separates a case that settles for a fraction from one that holds the fraternity fully accountable.
Cocaine is a powerful stimulant that floods the brain with dopamine, producing intense euphoria followed by a crash. In a person already in a state of psychological distress — from months of physical torture, threats, and psychological manipulation — cocaine can trigger an acute crisis: severe anxiety, paranoia, panic, agitation, and profoundly impaired judgment. It does not merely “make you feel bad.” It can induce a state of acute psychological decompensation where a person’s ability to reason through their distress collapses.
Psilocybin is a hallucinogen that alters perception, mood, and thought. In a controlled clinical setting, it is being studied for therapeutic use. In a fraternity house, given to a young man in a prolonged state of psychological crisis, it can produce a dissociative state — a break from reality, intense emotional lability, and a loss of the cognitive guardrails that ordinarily restrain desperate impulses. The combination of a stimulant (cocaine) and a hallucinogen (psilocybin) in a psychologically compromised individual is not a recreational experience. It is a chemical assault on a mind that was already under siege.
The defense will argue the suicide was caused by pre-existing depression or a spontaneous decision unrelated to the fraternity’s conduct. The medical answer: drug-induced crises are real, documented, and foreseeable. When you give cocaine and psilocybin to a person you have been psychologically abusing for months, the resulting crisis is not an accident. It is the foreseeable consequence of your own conduct. A forensic psychiatrist connects the dots — the prolonged abuse, the acute drug exposure, the crisis, and the death — in a causal chain that a jury can follow.
What If the Fraternity Says He “Chose” to Join and “Chose” to Stay?
This is the defense that makes families angriest — and it is the defense the law has already answered. Texas hazing law explicitly rejects consent as a defense to hazing. The entire premise of the statute is that the power dynamics of pledging — the desire to belong, the fear of exclusion, the pressure to prove oneself — make genuine consent impossible. A person being threatened with retaliation against his girlfriend if he does not attend an event is not making a free choice. A person being burned with cigarettes to prove his loyalty is not consenting to anything.
The law recognizes what every parent knows: an 18-year-old pledge, desperate to belong, subjected to escalating abuse by older students who control his social standing, is not in a position to say no. The fraternity created the conditions. The fraternity exploited them. And when the abuse reached its crescendo — with drugs on the day of his death — the fraternity is responsible for what followed.
How Long Do You Have to File a Hazing Wrongful Death Lawsuit in Texas?
Texas imposes a two-year statute of limitations on wrongful death claims, running from the date of death. This is governed by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.003. For a death in January 2024, the two-year window runs through January 2026. The lawsuit filed in November 2025 was filed within the limitations period.
But there are two critical nuances. First, the discovery rule — in some circumstances, the clock does not start until the family discovers or should have discovered the full extent of the hazing and its causal connection to the death. If the fraternity concealed the drug provision or the extent of the physical abuse, the clock may start later than the date of death. Second, survival claims follow the same two-year deadline, but run from the date of injury — which in a prolonged hazing campaign may be earlier than the date of death.
Do not rely on a general statement of the deadline. The specific facts of your case — what was known, when it was known, what was concealed — determine the controlling date. Call us, and we will tell you exactly where the clock stands.
The Venue — Why Travis County Matters
Travis County is one of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in Texas. The district courts that sit in Austin — the 98th, 126th, 200th, 353rd, 390th, 419th, 427th, 432nd, 459th, and 481st Judicial District Courts, plus the County Court at Law — handle civil cases before juries drawn from the Austin community. Those jurors include UT alumni, parents of current students, faculty, and staff — people who know the West Campus area, who understand Greek life, and who do not need a long explanation of why a fraternity that tortured a pledge is responsible for what happened next.
This matters. The same case tried in a conservative rural county might face a different jury posture. In Travis County, the institutional context — the university, the Greek system, the documented history of hazing at UT — is understood by the community. A jury of Travis County residents is more likely to hold a fraternity accountable than a jury drawn from a county with no major university presence.
Our Austin office sits at 316 West 12th Street, Suite 311 — downtown, minutes from the Travis County courthouse and the UT campus. We work this community. We know this courthouse.
Ralph Manginello and Lupe Peña — Who Will Be Fighting for Your Family
Ralph Manginello is the managing partner of The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. He has been licensed in Texas since November 6, 1998 — more than 27 years. He earned his B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin, where he studied journalism and public relations. He earned his J.D. from South Texas College of Law Houston. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, including the bankruptcy court. He is the lead counsel in the active $10M+ Bermudez v. Pi Kappa Phi / University of Houston hazing lawsuit in Harris County — meaning he is currently litigating a fraternity hazing case at a major Texas university right now. He is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the Houston Bar Association, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, among others. He speaks Spanish. He has produced more than 290 educational videos. And he does not lose cases quietly.
Lupe Peña is an associate attorney, licensed in Texas since December 2012. He earned his J.D. from South Texas College of Law Houston and his B.B.A. in International Business from Saint Mary’s University. Before joining our firm, Lupe spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decide how to deny, delay, and devalue claims like yours. He knows how Colossus valuation software works, how reserves are set in the first 48 hours, how IME doctors are selected, and how surveillance is deployed. He now uses that knowledge for injured clients. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. He is a third-generation Texan with family roots tracing to the King Ranch.
Together, they build hazing wrongful death cases the way they build every case: by freezing evidence before it disappears, mapping every defendant and every insurance policy, and never accepting the first version of events the fraternity tells.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you sue a fraternity for a hazing death in Texas?
Yes. Texas law provides two parallel paths. The Texas Hazing Act (Education Code Chapter 37) creates civil liability for hazing that causes injury or death. The Texas Wrongful Death Act (Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 71) allows parents, spouses, and children to recover for the loss of their family member. A survival action under Section 71.021 allows the estate to recover for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering before death. A fraternity hazing death typically involves all three claims — and multiple defendants, from the International organization down to individual members.
What if the fraternity says the suicide was not their fault?
This is the central defense in any hazing-death-by-suicide case, and it is the fight we are prepared for. The defense argues suicide is an independent, intervening act that breaks the chain of causation. Our counter: a forensic psychiatrist testifies on drug-induced psychosis — how the cocaine and psilocybin provided by fraternity members, combined with months of documented psychological and physical abuse, triggered the acute crisis that led to the death. The question of whether the fraternity’s conduct was a proximate cause — a substantial factor in producing the harm — is for the jury. Texas law does not treat suicide as an automatic bar to recovery; it treats it as a question of foreseeability. And torturing a person for months, then drugging him on his last day, makes a crisis foreseeable.
How long do I have to file a hazing wrongful death lawsuit in Texas?
Two years from the date of death under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.003. For a January 2024 death, the window runs through January 2026. The discovery rule may extend the deadline if the fraternity concealed the full extent of the hazing or the drug provision. Do not assume the clock — call us and we will tell you exactly where your case stands.
What kind of insurance does a fraternity carry, and will it cover a hazing death?
Greek organizations typically carry Commercial General Liability insurance through specialized insurers or risk retention groups. These policies frequently contain hazing exclusions and criminal-acts exclusions — meaning the insurer’s first move is to deny coverage. The House Corporation that owns the fraternity property carries separate premises liability insurance, which may be more accessible if the claim is framed as negligent supervision of the property rather than intentional hazing. Individual members may seek coverage under their parents’ homeowners policies, though intentional-acts exclusions are the primary hurdle. Finding every layer of available coverage is its own investigation, and it is one we conduct in every case.
What evidence needs to be preserved in a fraternity hazing case?
The most critical evidence — GroupMe and text message logs between pledges and members — can be deleted by any participant and dies in days. Pledge manuals and ritual documents that establish hazing traditions can be destroyed in minutes. Surveillance footage from the West Campus area and the convenience store overwrites on a 7-to-30-day cycle. The toxicology and autopsy report is already secured by the medical examiner but requires expert analysis. University disciplinary records are protected by FERPA but discoverable through subpoena. The preservation letter demanding all of this be frozen goes out the day you call us — because every day without it is a day closer to legally sanctioned destruction.
Can the national fraternity organization be held liable for what a local chapter did?
Yes — but it requires proving the national organization had knowledge of the dangerous conduct and failed to act. In this case, the University placed the Sigma Chi chapter on disciplinary probation in 2022 for hazing and on deferred suspension in 2024 for hazing. The International organization had actual notice. It did not close the chapter until May 2025 — more than a year after the death. The gap between what the International knew and what it did is the gap that opens the door to its liability.
What is a survival action, and how is it different from a wrongful death claim?
A wrongful death claim belongs to the surviving family members — parents, spouse, children — and compensates them for their own losses: mental anguish, loss of companionship, loss of the family relationship. A survival action belongs to the decedent’s estate and carries the claims the decedent would have had if he had survived — conscious pain and suffering, medical expenses, and the economic losses he experienced before death. In a hazing case, the survival action covers the physical pain of the burns, the piercings, the beatings, and the psychological terror of the drug-induced crisis. Both claims proceed together.
What if my child is still alive but was injured by fraternity hazing?
Call us immediately. The same evidence-preservation clock applies — actually, it is even more urgent, because your child’s own testimony is available and their phone is the most important evidence in the case. Texas hazing law applies to injuries, not just deaths. The physical abuse, the forced drug use, the psychological coercion — all are compensable. And the same defendant structure — International, chapter, House Corporation, individuals — applies. Do not wait until the injuries escalate. The evidence is dying right now.
How much does it cost to hire a hazing wrongful death lawyer?
Nothing upfront. We work on contingency — 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. We advance the costs of litigation — expert fees, filing fees, deposition costs, investigation expenses — and those costs are recovered from the recovery, not from the family’s pocket. If we do not win, the family owes us nothing for our time. This is not generosity. It is the only fair way to give every family, regardless of resources, access to the same quality of legal representation.
What should I do if the fraternity’s insurance company contacts my family?
Stop. Do not speak to them. Do not answer their questions. Do not “just tell them what happened.” Everything you say will be recorded and used to reduce or deny your claim. Their goal is to get a recorded statement that minimizes the fraternity’s conduct, emphasizes any pre-existing conditions, and creates a narrative where the death was “unfortunate but not our fault.” The only person your family should speak to about what happened is a lawyer. Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911, and we will handle every communication from that point forward.
Why This Firm — and Why Now
Ralph Manginello went to UT Austin. He is currently lead counsel in a $10M+ hazing lawsuit against Pi Kappa Phi at the University of Houston. He has spent 27 years in courtrooms including federal court. Lupe Peña sat in the rooms where insurance adjusters decided how to deny claims like yours — and now sits on your side of the table. Our firm has recovered more than $50 million for injured clients, including a $5M+ brain-injury settlement, a $3.8M+ amputation settlement, and a $2.5M+ truck-crash recovery. We have an office in Austin — at 316 West 12th Street, three blocks from the Travis County courthouse and a mile from the UT campus.
We are not the firm that sends a form letter and waits. We are the firm that sends the preservation demand before the funeral, that freezes the GroupMe logs before they are deleted, that maps every insurance policy before the carrier knows we are coming, and that puts a forensic psychiatrist on the witness stand to explain to a jury exactly how a fraternity turned a young man’s mind against him.
If your family has lost a child to fraternity hazing — at UT Austin, at any Texas university, anywhere in this state — the evidence is dying. The messages are being deleted. The cameras are recording over themselves. The members are coordinating their stories. Every hour that passes without a preservation letter is an hour the fraternity’s insurer counts as a win.
Call us. 1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. Hablamos Español. 24 hours a day, seven days a week — a live person, not an answering service.
Your son did not choose what happened to him. But you can choose what happens next. Choose to make them answer for it.
Learn more about our wrongful death practice · Read about Ralph Manginello · Our Texas hazing litigation practice