People involved in auto accidents often ask whether they are eligible for financial compensation. The starting point is to speak with an experienced personal injury attorney.

In this video, Austin attorney Ethan Shaw explains how a person injured in an accident is entitled to compensation if you can prove that another party is responsible.

For more information about your case, please call Shaw Cowart LLP today.

Posted in Blog, Personal Injury | No Comments »

Given the spike in popularity of privately-operated drones in recent years, the number of collisions, close calls and injury accidents involving drones is on the rise. From the woman injured by a drone during the 2015 Seattle Pride Parade to the bicycle racer in Sacramento who hurtled over his handlebars when a drone lodged in his front wheel, we’re seeing more and more incidents as people and drones making unwanted, sometimes dangerous, contact with people. What if it happens to you? If you sustain injury from a drone collision in Texas, what laws protect you? And if you operate a drone, could you be liable for someone’s injury?

The Rules of the Air

The FAA has established some rules regarding the private use of drones—and Texas has a few laws of its own, particularly regarding the use of cameras on drones. Let’s look primarily at the rules most applicable to our discussion:

• Drones between 0.55 pounds and 55 pounds must be registered with the FAA (no private drones weighing over 55 pounds are permitted)
• Drones must not fly higher than 400 feet or faster than 100 mphYou can’t operate a drone within 5 miles of an airport without permission
• Drones must remain within line-of-sight of the operator
• You must be at least 13 years old to register a drone
• Drones can’t be flown at night, except under proper lighting
• Drones can’t be flown under covered structures or in a car
• You can’t fly a drone over someone’s private property without permission
• You can’t spy on people with your drone
• You can’t fly a drone directly over people (unless they’re part of your group).

What Happens If a Drone Injury Accident Occurs

If a drone makes contact with someone and injures him, standard personal injury and liability laws apply. Important questions include: Was the operator acting carelessly or maliciously? Did the victim put herself in harm’s way? Could the circumstances causing the accident have been prevented? The answers to these and similar questions will frame most injury cases.  Generally speaking, if a drone does damage to someone else’s property or causes injury, or if a suit is brought for invasion of privacy, the liability coverage of the defendants’ homeowners policy is triggered and will provide funds up to its defined limits.

That said, the involvement of a drone in an injury accident may add a few variables to the case. For example, if the pilot was flying the drone over people when it crashed; if the drone was over private property; or if the pilot was capturing unlawful footage when the incident occurred– any of these factors could strengthen an injury case.

On the other hand, if the pilot was operating the drone legally and did everything possible to protect others, those factors could potentially strengthen the pilot’s defense.

Drone injury accidents can be complicated. If you are involved in one, you need a lawyer who is well-versed in drone laws as they apply to injury cases in Texas. To schedule an appointment, call our office at 512-499-8900.

Posted in Blog, Personal Injury | No Comments »

Attorney John Cowart discusses how Shaw Cowart LLP approaches a breach of contract claim.

Each case is different and it may sound simple, but there are complexities in every case. Questions that should be asked include:

• Where should a suit be filed?
• Is the defendant solvent?
• Will your claim stand on appeal?

If you have a potential breach of contract claim, please contact Shaw Cowart LLP for a confidential case evaluation. We represent business clients in Austin, throughout Texas and nationwide.

Posted in Blog, Business Litigation | No Comments »

Following a four-year investigation and in the wake of remarks by a visiting judge that he “wrestled to find enough smoke to suggest that there is a fire some place”, the final claim remaining against Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1’s former manager, Godfrey Garza, Jr., was voluntarily dismissed by the attorneys representing the drainage district.

The dismissal involved a claim hastily filed at the last minute by the drainage district alleging that Integ Corporation and Godfrey Garza, Jr. engaged in racketeering with others in connection with improperly profiting from drainage and levee border wall projects (Hidalgo County District Court, Hidalgo County, Texas, 275th Judicial District, Cause No. C-0373-17-E).

“The facts cited in the racketeering claim were based on the same facts that the judge said last week did not exist,” said Garza’s attorney, Ethan Shaw of the Austin-based law firm Shaw Cowart. “This four-year investigation that Hidalgo County undertook at a significant cost to its taxpayers has shown nothing.”  Shaw also said that pre-litigation letters sent to the drainage district explaining to them that Integ had been properly compensated per the terms of its contract – as confirmed by the drainage district’s own attorney – “fell on deaf ears.”

Despite the warnings to the drainage district about their own attorney’s position that Integ had been paid correctly under the contract, the District filed suit in January 2017, alleging $3.5 million in damages. The Drainage District’s lawsuit was based on breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conspiracy, unjust enrichment and constructive trust against Garza and his company, Integ Corporation.  On January 31^st of this year, visiting Judge Martin Chiuminatto ruled against the drainage district and disposed of all of those claims.

Garza’s wife, Annie, and sons, Jonathan and Godfrey Garza III, and their company Valley Data, were also named in the suit which received national media attention.  The motion for summary judgment granted last week and the voluntary dismissal of the racketeering claim also effectively ends the actions against them.

“We’re hopeful the Hidalgo County Drainage District and the county commissioners will accept the rulings of the court,” Shaw said.  Garza and his family have steadfastly denied accusations made to the County Commissioners Court beginning in 2014 when questions arose about rehabilitation of 22 miles of crumbling levees along the Rio Grande River to which a border fence was added.

Whether the drainage district will exercise any rights it may have on appeal remains to be seen, but if taken, “would be ill advised and a waste of taxpayer money” in Shaw’s opinion.  Trial had been set to begin on February 26, but is no longer necessary with the Judge’s latest rulings against the drainage district.

Posted in Blog, Business Litigation | No Comments »

A recent study looking at crash data from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) found that four of the 10 most dangerous intersection for pedestrians in Texas are located in Austin, including the number one most dangerous. San Marcos made the list too, with the third most dangerous intersection in the state. Both injuries and deaths were considered in the study. In 2016, a national study which only looked at fatalities, ranked Austin 47^th most dangerous city for pedestrians in the country, worse than Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia.

Dangerous Austin Intersections

According to the Texas study, Austin’s intersections that made the top 10 most dangerous are:

• #1 – Trinity and East Seventh – 40 crashes, 42 total injuries, six incapacitating injuries
• #4 – West Fourth and Lavaca – 31 crashes, 34 total injuries, six incapacitating injuries
• #7 – North Lamar Boulevard – 25 crashes, 24 total injuries, three incapacitating injuries, one death
• #10 – I35 and Rundberg – 16 crashes, 21 total injuries, seen incapacitating injuries

Austin Pedestrian Injuries and Deaths

Pedestrian safety is a serious problem in Austin. According to the City of Austin’s Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, nearly 1,900 pedestrians were involved in pedestrian accidents between 2010 and 2015. 121 were killed and, for every death another 10 people were seriously injured.

Pedestrians at higher risk for serious injury and death include those who are one of the following:

• Older
• Male
• Homeless

If you or someone you love has been seriously injured or if you have lost a loved one in a fatal pedestrian crash in Austin, Shaw Cowart LLP can help. Please call us at 512-499-8900 or contact us today to learn more.

Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Austin, Texas, attorney Ethan Shaw explains why companies retain Shaw Cowart, LLP. Shaw Cowart, LLP is a small firm that performs sophisticated legal work in business litigation matters. The firm is loyal to its clients and pays attention to the details that could make or break your case.

Shaw Cowart, LLP is based in Austin and represents business clients in litigation matters throughout Texas and nationwide. We have a history of handling cases both on the plaintiff’s and defendant’s side to successful resolutions.

Shaw Cowart, LLP offers flexible fee structures and handles a wide range of business litigation matters.

Please contact us today at 512-499-8900.

Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Fatigue is a common problem for truck drivers, and a major contributor to crashes. Hours of Service (HOS) laws were created to reduce driver fatigue, but have not been effective for many reasons. Truck drivers often spend more time on the road than allowed in order to keep their jobs. Those who do not violate HOS can still be impaired by fatigue. When fatigue is a contributing factor in truck accidents, it is often in combination with other factors such as excessive speed or intoxication.

The truck accident lawyers in Austin at Shaw Cowart, LLP, have extensive experience representing people injured in collisions with 18-wheelers. We have successfully represented clients in Austin and throughout Texas and we stand ready to help you get the compensation you need and deserve. Please call us today.

Causes of Truck Driver Fatigue

The underlying causes of truck driver fatigue are complex, and it is a problem that will not be solved in the near future.

Truck drivers are under pressure from the companies that pay them to deliver loads, and are sometimes encouraged to falsify their logs so they can drive longer than they are legally allowed. Trucking companies set unrealistic delivery schedules and expect their drivers to meet them, even if they have to break the law. As truckers are forced to switch to electronic logging devices (ELDs) which send the information directly to the Department of Transportation (DOT), it will become more difficult to falsify logs. Unfortunately, HOS violations are not the only cause of truck driver fatigue.

Factors which contribute to truck driver fatigue include:

• Unrealistic schedules imposed on truck drivers
• Irregular schedules
• Night driving
• Lack of rest stops
• Noisy or dangerous parking areas where drivers cannot truly rest
• Trying to sleep during the day
• Sleep disorders such as sleep apnea
• Hazardous weather conditions
• Weather conditions which cause poor visibility
• Hot weather
• Hazardous traffic conditions
• Monotonous driving
• Physical labor performed when not driving
• Stress
• Depression
• Problems at home
• Poor eating habits
• Health problems

Fatigue and Accidents

Fatigue is a major contributor to motor vehicle accidents, for all type of drivers. Professional truck drivers are not immune to the effects of fatigue, even with all of their skill and experience. Fatigue is an impairment and there is no way to test for it as we do with alcohol impairment. It causes slowed reaction times and poor judgment. And, of course, drivers can actually fall asleep at the wheel.

Large commercial trucks do not respond like passenger vehicles. It takes longer to stop and evasive maneuvers are much riskier. That means that truck drivers must be fully alert at all times so that they can respond quickly and appropriately to situations that can cause accidents.

Fatigue and excessive speed are a common combination for truck drivers who face unrealistic schedules. Both fatigue and being rushed can lead to dangerous shortcuts such as skipping a pre-trip inspection or failing to properly secure the load.

To learn more about your legal rights and how we can help you recover the compensation you need and deserve, please call Shaw Cowart, LLP, at 512-499-8900 or email us today. Your initial consultation is free of charge and you are under no obligation to move forward with us. If we represent you, we will do so on a contingent fee basis. We do not ask for money upfront. We only get paid if you get paid.

Posted in Blog, Trucking Accident | No Comments »

Failing to get the appropriate coverage for a client is a serious error and one of the most common reasons why insurance agents get sued, accounting for about 24 percent of errors and omissions policy claims according to Insureon, a leading specialty insurance broker.

Industry statistics reveal insurance agents do make mistakes and the result is 14 percent are sued, Insureon reports.

As a business owner it’s important to understand that insurance agents can be successfully sued by their clients for breach of contract or negligence if the agent fails to procure appropriate coverage.

Generally, an insurance agent or broker who undertakes to procure insurance for a client owes an obligation to the client to use reasonable diligence in attempting to place the insurance or notify the client in a timely manner if the agent or broker is unable to obtain the insurance requested. When the agent undertakes to procure insurance for a client, the agent must exercise reasonable care, skill, and good faith diligence in seeking to obtain the insurance.

There are three distinct contexts in which the question of inadequate coverage arises: (1) where the agent does not indemnify the client against a particular risk; (2) where the agent acquires a policy for the client but fails to provide a sufficient amount of coverage; and (3) where the agent fails to provide the client with the best coverage available at the best price.

An example of the first situation can be found in Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc. v. Pete’s Satire, Inc., 739 P.2d 239 (Colo. 1987) where the agent was held liable to the client for obtaining a multi-peril business insurance policy for the client’s restaurant and bar that did not provide liquor liability coverage as requested by the client.

An example of the second situation can be found in Cusimano v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 405 So.2d 1382 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1981) where the agent was held liable to the client for procuring an automobile insurance policy that provided the client with $100,000 less in liability coverage.

An example of the third situation is found in Beacon Industries, Inc. v. Walter Kaye Assoc., Inc., 789 F.2d 172 (2nd Cir. 1986) (applying Connecticut law) where the broker was found negligent in obtaining an insurance policy that failed to contain provisions that would have resulted in reducing the client’s premiums. Thus, the insurance agent in Beacon Industries, Inc. failed to provide the client with the best coverage available at the best price.

An insurance agent’s primary function as it relates to a client is to faithfully negotiate and procure the insurance coverage requested by the client in accordance with the client’s instructions. The insurance agent must have an adequate legal reason to justify a departure from the client’s instructions or the agent will be held liable for damages that may arise.

A question can arise as to whether the client’s instructions were clear, explicit, absolute and unqualified. Where the client’s instructions are ambiguous, obscure, or fairly susceptible to different interpretations, the agent may not be held liable in those situations where the agent acted in good faith and on a reasonable interpretation of the client’s instructions. As an example, in Nowell v. Dawn-Leavitt Agency, Inc., 617 P.2d 1164 (Ariz. App. 1980), the agent was held not responsible for his failure to procure flood insurance for the client’s property in a situation where the client instructed the agent to obtain the “best policy” to cover the property. The court noted that the instruction given by the client was too ambiguous to give rise to a duty on the part of the agent to obtain specific coverage, such as flood insurance, as opposed to a general peril policy which the agent actually acquired for the client.

Where the client does not specify that the agent is to acquire insurance from a particular company, the agent may exercise discretion in selecting the company. In exercising this discretion the agent must exercise the skill and diligence that is ordinarily exercised by insurance agents generally in that particular field.

Posted in Blog, Employment | No Comments »

While this may come as a surprise to many, in Texas, most oral agreements are legal and enforceable. Unfortunately, problems arise when an oral contract dispute comes to court. Without a written agreement, the contract can become a case of “he said/she said.” To avoid such disputes, let’s briefly review the requirements for an oral agreement.

What is a Contract?

A contract is a binding set of promises between competent parties. Whether written or oral, in order to be valid, a contract must have four elements. There must be both an offer and an acceptance of this offer. Then there must be a mutual understanding of the parties’ specific benefits and obligations—what in legal circles is referred to as “a meeting of the minds.” And, finally, there must be “consideration,” meaning that each party receives some benefit from performing the contract (e.g., payment will be rendered in exchange for goods or services).

For oral agreements, the difficulty is in proving that each of those elements existed at the time of the agreement.

Typically, a litigating party will offer evidence proving the existence of the agreement, by showing that a party did perform at least some of the duties required by the verbal agreement. But a court is basically looking to see if there’s any other possible explanation for the parties’ actions. To answer that, parties will bring in correspondence, witness statements, invoices, and more supporting documentation and evidence to support their claims.

Some Contracts Must Be in Writing:

Despite oral contracts’ general enforceability, Texas law—including the Texas Statute of Frauds—requires certain dealings to be in writing. With few exceptions, the following agreements must have a written contract to be enforceable:

• Agreements between attorneys or parties regarding pending lawsuits;
• Agreements with a duration of more than one year;
• Commission agreements related to certain oil, gas or mineral agreements;
• Contracts for the sale of goods for $500 or more;
• Contracts for sale of real estate or commissions from a real estate sale;
• Guaranty agreements;
• Loans from financial institutions;
• Marriage agreements;
• Medical/healthcare agreements; and
• Promises to pay debts or damages of a decedent.

What Can You Do?

 Ideally, business agreements should be in writing. Written contracts are the legal ounce of prevention that yields much more than a pound of cure.

But in practice, the law recognizes that many industries rely on oral contracts and a proverbial handshake. If you are in a situation where you are concerned about the enforceability of a contract, contact us today to discuss your options and strategies for going forward.

Posted in Blog, Business Litigation | No Comments »

Austin attorney Ethan Shaw explains the factors that go into how much your personal injury claim is worth.

Here are a few factors that may impact the value of your personal injury claim:

• The amount of lost wages
• The amount of past and anticipated future medical bills
• The emotional distress suffered by the victim

Notably, Mr. Shaw explains that the experience of your attorney can significantly impact the value of any settlement or verdict for your personal injury claim. A more experienced attorney may be able to negotiate a more favorable settlement for multiple reasons including:

• the attorney’s experience may result in additional damages being uncovered
• the attorney’s experience may impact the insurance company’s settlement strategy, particularly if the attorney has a history of success at trial

The attorneys at Shaw Cowart, LLP have the experience to evaluate your personal injury claim and to aggressively pursue your claim at trial.

Posted in Blog, Personal Injury | No Comments »