Judgment for $1.3 million

The Baez Law Firm from San Antonio Texas, obtained a trial judgment Friday, June 29, 2012 against Skyco Inc. an equipment company from Florida. The judgment was obtained based on Skyco's misrepresentations fraud and deceptive practices here in Texas.

The judgment was awarded to Pannel Construction Co. a Texas company that purchased equipment from Skyco. Pannel Construction is one of many clients of the firm, that we have help recover damages for their injuries here in Texas.

When any company does business over the internet in Texas, they can be held liable to a Texas jury for any damages  that they may cause to either an individual or a company in Texas. This is called availing themselves to a Texas forum. If you thing that a company is doing you or your business wrong, give us a call.

We represent people, businesses and others in Texas on multiple issues including litigation and trial, appeals, and many more. If you are in need of business representation, or have litigation issues, give us a call. If your company has been damaged, give us a call.

We have been selected as Super Lawyers by our peers because of our success and commitment to our clients and their cases.

Out of State companies doing businesses in Texas, either over the internet or mail, and make misrepresentation to a Texas company or individual, and a contract is entered into, those out of State companies will be held liable in Texas for their wrongs.

Congratulations to Pannel Construction Co. for the judgment obtained yesterday against Skyco. It has been a long process but it had its rewards. We have been honored to have represented you during this entire litigation. This is why we say, "we care about your legal needs!"

Is your auto accident covered by PIP Insurance?

Do you know whether your claims is covered by PIP or not? Have you been injured in a motor vehicle accident? Is your claim covered? There are numerous court factors considered in making the determination. Here is some of the research on that topic.

The statute's definition of "personal injury protection" is detailed, but it does not specify whether merely "an accident" will trigger coverage or whether a "motor vehicle accident" is required. The statute uses the term "the accident" six times, and the phrase "the date of accident" once, without expressing whether "the accident" contemplates, or does not contemplate, an automobile or motor vehicle accident.

Personal injury protection consists of provisions of a motor vehicle liability policy which provide for payment to the named insured in the motor vehicle liability policy and members of the insured's household, any authorized operator or passenger of the named insured's motor vehicle including a guest occupant, up to an amount of $2,500 for each such person for payment of all reasonable expenses arising from the accident and incurred within three years from the date thereof for necessary medical, surgical, Xray and dental services, including prosthetic devices, and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing and funeral services, and in the case of an income producer, payment of benefits for loss of income as the result of the accident; and where the person injured in the accident was not an income or wage producer at the time of the accident, payments of benefits must be made in reimbursement of necessary and reasonable expenses incurred for essential services ordinarily performed by the injured person for care and maintenance of the family or family household.

The insurer providing loss of income benefits may require, as a condition of receiving such benefits, that the insured person furnish the insurer reasonable medical proof of his injury causing loss of income. The personal injury protection in this paragraph specified shall not exceed $2,500 for all benefits, in the aggregate, for each person.

The benefits required by this Act shall be payable without regard to the fault or nonfault of the named insured or the recipient in causing or contributing to the accident, and without regard to any collateral source of medical, hospital, or wage continuation benefits. An insurer paying benefits pursuant to this Act shall have no right of subrogation and no claim against any other person or insurer to recover any such benefits by reason of the alleged fault of such other person in causing or contributing to the accident.

All payments of benefits prescribed under this Act shall be made periodically as the claims therefor arise and within thirty (30) days after satisfactory proof thereof is received by the insurer subject to the following limitations:

The coverage described in this Act may prescribe a period of not less than six months after the date of accident within which the original proof of loss with respect to a claim for benefits must be presented to the insurer.

The decision in Le v. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. considered whether this statute permitted the State Board of Insurance to promulgate a policy that required a "motor vehicle accident" and concluded that it did. That court reasoned that "[i]t is likely that the statewide cost for injuries which happen to occur in a car is higher than the cost of paying for injuries which result from a motor vehicle accident." It gave deference to the Board, concluding, "[w]e do not find the Board's construction repugnant to the statute."

The reasoning in Le v. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. is sound. It is certainly reasonable and permissible for a policy providing personal injury protection to require the occurrence of a "motor vehicle accident" before coverage is applicable. An insurer paying personal injury protection coverage has no right of subrogation for the fault of another person in causing or contributing to "the accident." does not prohibit automobile policies issued in this state from requiring that the injuries be sustained as a result of a "motor vehicle accident."

However, the court found that a motor vehicle accident occurs when one or more vehicles are involved with another vehicle, an object, or a person, the vehicle is being used as a motor vehicle, and a causal connection exists between the vehicle's use and the injury-producing event, and
driver's injury resulted from a "motor vehicle accident" and entitled him to PIP benefits. Texas Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sturrock, 146 S.W.3d 123 (Tex. 2004).

There is hope out there that your PIP may cover your claim. Give us a call if you have any questions. We are San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyers here to help you! We care about your legal needs.

San Antonio Lawyers and Attorneys

The Baez Law Firm has San Antonio Lawyers and Attorneys helping the legal needs of our community. We do this, because we care about people's legal needs. Our staff members make a difference, and our San Antonio Attorneys will fight for your rights.

We handle not only personal injury, but other areas of law. In the area of personal injury, we have created an accident tool that can help you, in the event of an accident in San Antonio. Our lawyers are here to help you step by step, in the event of an injury as a result of negligence.

We have partner in the area of family law in San Antonio and in Texas, with Cheap Texas Divorce. When people cannot afford an attorney but need a divorce in Texas, Cheap Texas Divorce is the solution for a Texas Divorce. Although we handle divorces, many people cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars for a divorce, but they can afford Cheap Texas Divorce.

When you need a criminal defense lawyer in San Antonio, you need us! We have successfully helped numerous defendants present their cases in court. We handle DWI defense, drug charges, assault and battery, murder, or any felonies and misdemeanors in all courts in Texas. When you need aggressive legal representation for your criminal case, we are here to help.

Regardless of your legal need in San Antonio, when you need a lawyer or attorney in San Antonio, you can count on The Baez Law Firm. Come and see us, and you will see the difference. We have payment plans to help any budget. Do not go to court in San Antonio alone. Have your own legal team helping you.

When you need a Super Lawyer in Antonio, you need The Baez Law Firm.

During a trial, you never know what a juror is thinking!

Jurors are very unpredictable! We know that, there are three kinds of jurors, but during a trial, anyone can change. Specially, if the subject of the trial is controversial, complicated or boring. We saw that this past week in Federal Court, and thus this post.

We believe in the system that we have in America, but, can a juror get it wrong? When both sides have strong arguments, credible witnesses and a lot of facts to back up their story, what do jurors focus on? It would be interesting to know, as a litigator, what those jurors are thinking during your argument, or during your questioning of a particular witness.

What if one side has so much money that, the other side looks ill prepared. What if one side can bring experts, videos and gadgets and the other side can't? Is that equal? What if one side is backed up by an insurance company, and the other one is not?

Our jurisprudence system was created with justice and equality for all. Our founding fathers envisioned a system where, a jury of your peers, would be the judges of the facts. But what if they get it wrong? What if the jurors are confused. What if the jurors fall asleep and the most likable party gets their vote. What if the jurors are so tired, that they just want to leave?

It is an honor to work in a system that is fair and impartial for all. But, is it equal? We believe that, the more green you have, the easier it becomes to get justice for your client. Maybe the more green its spent to prepare for a trial, the better outcome will be for your client. Is that equal? It is fair! And, it is impartial....never equal!

If you are in need of a litigating firm, give us a call (210) 979-9777. Our San Antonio Lawyers will prepare and fight for your rights in court. Our San Antonio law firm is here to help you with your legal needs!

Texas Dram Shop Liability

Many individuals have been injured as a result of alcohol consumption in Texas. Many people don't know that, the person that served them the alcohol, could be liable to them for the injuries suffered. This is called "Dram Shop" laws.

This law allows individuals to bring civil action against a person(s) who serves, sells, or provides alcohol to someone who is visibly intoxicated to the extent that such person presents a clear and obvious danger to self or others.

All the injured party has to do is prove that the intoxicated person was served alcohol after being obviously intoxicated, and the intoxication was the proximate cause of the damage incurred. In other words, the bartender knew you were drunk, but kept on serving you. The Texas Dram Shop Act was passed in 1987 and extended in April 1993.

The Act allows the intoxicated person to sue for damages. There are some obsticles that the injured person has to overcome. Mainly, the Comparative Responsibility Act, which applies to the dram shop laws. This Act holds that the intoxicated person can recover damages, but only if the establishment is more responsible, than the individual, for the individual’s intoxication.

Our lawyers have been sucessful in helping Texans recover against the bars, clubs or other establishments, for Dram Shop liability. If you believe that you were a victim of negligence, please call us at (210) 979-9777.

Auto Accidents in San Antonio

San Antonians just finished with the celebration of a long tradition, Fiesta Week. During Fiesta, there are numerous auto accidents in San Antonio, many of the victims do not seek legal representation. Our Lawyers in San Antonio would like to know why? Why would anyone in San Antonio would go unprotected when they are victims of auto accident? An insurance company will never go to battel without their weapons, why should a victim of an auto accident in San Antonio not do the same?

We have been representing victims of auto accidents in San Antonio and Bexar County sucessfully. Our San Antonio Lawyers and Attorneys handle all types of personal injury cases, including auto accidents, medical malpractice, negligence, police brutality, civil rights violations, trucking accidents, motorcylce accidents, fatalities, wrongful death and much more.

Our San Antonio Lawyers also handle Family Law, Business Law, Criminal Defense, Appeals, Consumer Law and many other areas of law. If you have been injured, as a result of someone's negligence, give us a call (210) 9798-9777.

We are here to help you during difficult times, because we care about your legal needs.

Sample Brief on Motions For New Trial

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND REQUEST OF FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PREVIOUS DEFAULT JUDGMENT

TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE:

NOW COMES PERSON FILING BRIEF, hereinafter called Movant, and files this Brief in Support of her Motion For A New Trial and Requests for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the Previous Default Judgment, and in support hereof, shows the Court the following:

I.

Movant would show unto the court that the evidence presented to the Court by Intervenor to obtain the Default Judgment (Order in Plea in Intervention) against the Movant was legally insufficient to support a Default Judgment. More specifically, the Court found a breach on a contract and issued an Order Against Movant, (See Exhibit A), but nothing on the pleadings, contracts or anywhere indicates, and no evidence was presented to the Court that would substantiate a breach by Movant of said contract (See Exhibit B).

The Intervenor failed to present any evidence as to any duty by Movant or any liquidated damages suffered by Intervenor. Moreover, the initial judgment, and any judgement thereafter were obtained against PERSON WHO'S JUDGEMENT IS AGAINST, not against Movant. Finally, the contract between Movant and Intervenor specifically requires Dispute Resolution by Binding Arbitration (Exhibit C), at the request of either party, which was not done in this case prior to obtaining the Default Judgment against Movant. Movant was not properly served with Notice of Default Judgement against her.

II.

Movant incorporates into her Motion For A New Trial Orders for all purposes and the following exhibits, statutory law and case law:

(1) Exhibit A - Order on Plea in Intervention
(2) Exhibit B - Plea in Intervention
(3) Exhibit C- Contract between Movant and Intervenor
(4) Exhibit D- Letters from Movant's former counsel requesting Intervenor=s accounting or performance under the contract
(5) Foley v. Daniel, 346 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2009, no pet.)
(6) Mason v. Mason, 256 S.W.3d 716, 717 (Tex. App.--Hous. [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.)
  (7) Coastal Banc SSB v. Helle, 48 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied).
(8) Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 171.001.
(9) Tex. Fam.Code Ann. '' 6.601, 153.0071 (Vernon 2005 & Supp.2007) III.

On DATE, Movant and Intervenor entered into a contract for legal representation for collection of child support, inter alias. There was a proviso within the contract that required in the pertinent parts Aat any parties request, any and all disputes arising out of this contract...all parties hereby agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration. Movant had, in multiple times requested a resolution of the problems by arbitration, but it has not been done.

On DATE, Intervenor filed his Plea in Intevention. Nothing was done on the case for over three years. Almost three years later, Intervenor sets the an Amended Plea in Intervention, Amended Notice of hearing but failed to served on the Movant the Amended Pleading. Movant requested time and time again from Intervenor, to show performance under the contract, but Intervenor has failed to prove any. Movan was given multiple excuses, including that a former assistant has quit and that the billing person had dies of cancer; nevertheless, Intervenor has never shown performance under the contract.

 On DATE, Intervenor Defaulted Movant and obtained a judgment against her knowledge. No evidence was presented to the court as to any of the elements of any alleged breach of contract. The Intervenor obtained judgements against Movant for liquidated damages that were never proven in Court. Movant has multiple Rule 94 Affirmative Defenses of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to laches, statute of limitations, failure to perform, estoppel, and many others on the case that she was prevented from submitting to the Court by not been properly noticed.

 IV.

The elements of a claim for Abreach of contract are:

(1) the existence of a valid contract;
(2) performance or tendered performance by the plaintiff;
 (3) breach of the contract by the defendant; and
 (4) damages to the plaintiff resulting from that breach. Foley v. Daniel, 346 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2009, no pet.) Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 171.001.

Intervenor has not presented sufficient evidence to support his performance under the contract, that a breach occurred on the contract, or any damages arising therefrom. Texas strongly encourages alternative dispute resolution, particularly in family law matters. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. ' 154.002 (Vernon 2005).

The Family Code expressly permits binding arbitration in divorce and SAPCR cases. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. '' 6.601, 153.0071 (Vernon 2005 & Supp.2007). Mason v. Mason, 256 S.W.3d 716, 717 (Tex. App.--Hous. [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) These Intervention should had been handle by Binding Arbitration as requested by Movant and not by litigation as obtained by Intervenor. When a trial court fails to comply with the rules of notice, a party is deprived of his constitutional right to be present at the hearing, to voice his objections in an appropriate manner, and results in a violation of fundamental due process. Coastal Banc SSB v. Helle, 48 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied).

A default judgment cannot be sustained where no notice of the default judgment hearing was given to a defendant who has appeared. Id. V. Movant was prevented from presenting her Affirmative Defenses and or case in front of an Arbitrator as required by the contract at issue. Movant was not properly served with a Notice of Default Judgment as required by law, since she made a general appearance in the case prior to the default. Intervenor presented no evidence to substantiate a judgment against Movant. There was not evidence to support breach, performance or damages.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Movant prays that the Court grant the New Trial; in the alternative, that the Court require the parties to arbitrate the case; In the event that the New Trial is not granted, the Court to issue findings of facts and conclusions of law as to the Default Judgment and Order on Plea in Intervention; and that Movant have such other and further relief at law or in equity to which Movant may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted.

Our San Antonio Lawyers, San Antonio Attorneys, San Antonio Abogados are here to help you with your legal needs. Give us a call (210) 979-9777.