Hit by a DoorDash, Uber Eats, or Grubhub Driver in Texas? Here’s What You Need to Know.

You were driving to work, crossing a parking lot, or riding your bike when a driver with a delivery bag in the passenger seat ran a red light, blew through a stop sign, or rear-ended you at full speed. Now you have medical bills, a totaled car, and an insurance adjuster from a company you have never heard of calling your phone. This article explains exactly who is liable when you are hit by a DoorDash, Uber Eats or GrubHub driver, which insurance policies cover your injuries, and why these cases are more complicated than a standard two-car accident.

Who You Can Sue: The Corporate Structure Behind the Driver

The driver who hit you is one defendant. The corporate structure behind that driver determines how much money is actually available.

DoorDash

DoorDash, Inc. is a publicly traded corporation (NYSE: DASH) that operates the DoorDash and Caviar platforms. Every driver, called a “Dasher,” is classified as an independent contractor under the company’s terms of service. DoorDash defends that classification aggressively. But the contractor label does not automatically shield the company from liability. Under Texas law, the analysis turns on the degree of control DoorDash actually exercises over how Dashers perform their work, and the answer is more contested than the company’s contracts suggest.

Uber Eats

Uber Eats is a delivery platform operated by Uber Technologies, Inc., the same parent company that runs Uber rideshare. A single driver may toggle between rideshare and food delivery using one app. As with DoorDash, drivers are classified as independent contractors. Texas courts have generally upheld that classification for vicarious liability purposes. That does not close the door on suing Uber directly.

Grubhub

Grubhub Inc. became a subsidiary of the Dutch‑listed company Just Eat Takeaway.com after being acquired in 2021. In November 2024, Wonder Group Inc. (doing business as Wonder) agreed to acquire Grubhub from Just Eat Takeaway; that transaction closed in early 2025. Grubhub drivers are also classified as independent contractors.

The Driver Personally

The individual driver is always a defendant. You can sue the driver directly for negligence regardless of what insurance applies.

When the Platform Itself Is Liable

Texas recognizes three theories for holding the platform directly liable.

First, negligent hiring and negligent retention. If DoorDash, Uber Eats, or Grubhub activated a driver whose background check should have revealed disqualifying information, the company is liable for that failure independently of whether the driver was an employee. These platforms run background checks. When those checks miss something, or when the company ignores a red flag, that failure is a direct cause of action against the company itself.

Second, the right-to-control test. Texas courts examine whether the hiring party controls not just the result of the work, but the manner and means of performing it. Delivery platforms exercise algorithmic control over drivers through real-time GPS tracking, route suggestions, and performance scoring. Whether that control is sufficient to undercut the contractor defense is a fact question that experienced lawyers probe in discovery.

Third, negligent entrustment applies where the company knowingly allowed a driver with a documented dangerous driving history to remain active on the platform after prior complaints or incidents.

The Insurance Coverage That Actually Applies

This is the most contested area in cases involving gig drivers—independent contractors who use their own vehicles to deliver food, groceries, or packages for app-based platforms. It’s also where injured people are most likely to get hurt twice: once in the crash, and again when two insurance companies each insist the other one is responsible. Understanding how these overlapping insurance policies work — and where coverage gaps are intentionally built into the system — is critical. Just as important: never speak with an insurance adjuster before consulting an attorney who can protect your rights and prevent the insurance companies from using your words against you.

The Personal Policy Problem

When you are hit by a DoorDash, Uber Eats, or other app‑based delivery driver, you might assume their regular car insurance will pay for your injuries and damage. In reality, most Texas personal auto policies have loopholes that let the insurance company argue, “We don’t have to cover this because the driver was working for an app.” The exact wording is different from company to company, but the basic idea is the same: if the car is being used to deliver food or other items for money, the insurer may claim it doesn’t have to pay.

Insurance companies often do not decide this up front. After a crash, they dig into what the driver was doing, pull phone and app records, and ask questions about delivery work. If they discover the driver was logged into a delivery app and never told them about that work when they bought the policy, the insurer may try to deny the claim for two reasons at once:

1. “The policy doesn’t cover delivery work,” and

2. “The driver lied or left this out when they applied for insurance, so the policy isn’t valid for this crash.”

Texas law does not let an insurance company cancel a policy over every little mistake. They are supposed to prove that what the driver left out or misstated really mattered to their decision to insure them and that the company relied on that information. But in the real world, insurance companies still make this argument often, and they don’t handle it the same way in every case. The bottom line for you, as the person who got hit, is that you cannot safely assume the driver’s regular car insurance will be there when you need it.

On top of that, many newer Texas policies now have a special “rideshare” or delivery‑driver exclusion added by endorsement. This is an extra piece of language the company adds to the policy that says there is no coverage any time the car is being used for an app like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, or similar services, unless the driver bought special coverage for that. If that endorsement is attached to the policy, it makes it even easier for the insurance company to say, “We don’t cover this crash because the driver was working for an app at the time.”

The Delivery Coverage Periods and What Each Actually Means

The platforms divide coverage into periods based on app activity. The legal and practical significance of each period is different for DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Grubhub, but the general structure looks like this across all three platforms:

Period	Driver Activity	Personal Policy Status	Platform Coverage	Real-World Risk for You
App off	Not working	Fully applies	Ninguno	Lowest gap risk; treat as standard auto case
Period 1: App on, no order accepted	Available, waiting	Often denied (commercial use); or never disclosed to insurer	Limited or contingent	Coverage gap most likely here
Period 2: Order accepted, en route to restaurant	Active delivery	Denied on commercial use exclusion	Platform commercial policy triggers	Fight is over whether Period 2 has triggered
Period 3: Food in vehicle, en route to customer	Active delivery	Denied on commercial use exclusion	Platform commercial policy, up to $1 million	Best coverage scenario; fight is over whether this period applies

DoorDash Coverage in a Nutshell

DoorDash has a $1,000,000 liability policy that can help you if a Dasher hits you, but it only applies when the driver is on an active delivery (they’ve accepted an order and are driving to the restaurant or the customer). In that active‑delivery window, DoorDash’s policy is supposed to pay for injuries and damage the Dasher causes to other people, not the Dasher’s own car or medical bills.

When the app is just on and the driver is waiting for an order, coverage is much murkier. The driver’s personal insurance may try to deny the claim because they were working, and DoorDash may say its policy does not apply because there was no active delivery. That’s where your own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage can become critical to fill any gap.

Uber Eats Coverage in a Nutshell

Uber generally follows the same three‑period structure it uses for rideshare trips:

• Period 1 – App on, waiting for a delivery:
  The driver is logged into Uber but has not yet accepted an order. Uber typically offers limited, contingent liability coverage in this window. Historically, that has been in the neighborhood of $50,000 per person / $100,000 per crash / $25,000 property damage, but the exact numbers can change and may not be identical for delivery in every state. The key point for you: this is a weaker, more disputed coverage period, and Uber treats it as secondary to the driver’s own policy.

• Periods 2 and 3 – Order accepted and being delivered:
  Once the driver accepts a delivery and is on the way to the restaurant or to the customer, Uber’s commercial policy can provide up to $1,000,000 in third‑party liability coverage if the driver is at fault. Again, this is meant to protect people the driver injures, not the driver’s own vehicle. This active‑delivery window is usually the strongest chance of getting to the Uber policy.

• The “contingent” problem in Period 1:
  Uber describes its waiting‑period coverage as contingent on the driver’s personal insurance. In practice, that means Uber often insists the personal insurer must go first and may only step in if the personal policy clearly does not apply to this kind of loss. The legal fight is over whether a personal insurer’s denial based on a delivery exclusion triggers Uber’s coverage, or whether Uber can argue that, because the personal policy should have applied, its contingent coverage never turns on. That’s where you can end up in a coverage tug‑of‑war and where your own UM/UIM coverage becomes crucial.

Grubhub Coverage in Detail

Grubhub also uses an “app status” structure, but its insurance details are less visible to the public than Uber’s, and they can change over time. In general, the strongest chance of getting to a Grubhub policy is when the driver is on an active delivery—they’ve accepted an order and are driving to the restaurant or to the customer. In that window, Grubhub typically carries a commercial liability policy meant to protect people the driver injures, up to a high limit (often comparable to other major apps), but the exact amount and terms depend on the current policy and the state.

When the app is just on and the driver is waiting for an order, coverage is much less clear. The driver’s personal insurer may try to deny the claim because the car was being used for delivery work, and Grubhub may say its own policy does not apply because there was no active delivery at the time of the crash. That combination can leave you in a coverage gray area where your own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and any PIP or MedPay you bought are critical safety nets.

Piercing the Personal Use Defense: How to Reach the Platform’s Coverage

When a personal insurer denies and a platform argues its contingent coverage does not trigger because the personal policy should have applied first, you are facing what practitioners call the “coverage sandwich.” The personal insurer denies upward; the platform insurer denies downward; and you are left in the middle. Here is how an experienced lawyer attacks each layer.

Attack the Personal Policy Exclusion on Its Own Language

Under Texas law, an insurance company has to write exclusions in clear, unambiguous language if it wants to rely on them. If a court thinks the wording is reasonably open to more than one meaning, it usually interprets the exclusion against the insurer and in favor of coverage. That means the “no coverage because they were delivering food” clause is not automatically as iron‑clad as the insurance company says.

Most personal auto policies use language like “no coverage while the car is used to carry persons or property for a fee.” Food delivery obviously involves carrying property for money, but there is still an argument about when that use actually starts. When the app is just on and the driver is waiting for an order (Period 1), you can argue the car is being used for regular personal driving to a convenient location, not to actually haul food yet. Texas courts have not laid down a single bright‑line rule for gig delivery in every situation, so there is room to contest how and when that exclusion applies.

If the “no delivery” or “no business use” language was added later by endorsement instead of being in the original policy, your lawyer should also look at how it was added. Texas law expects insurers to clearly notify policyholders when they narrow coverage; failure to give proper notice of an endorsement can be a basis to challenge it, depending on the facts and the specific statutes or regulations in play. That is very technical, but it’s another pressure point your lawyer can use.

Finally, the exact wording of any “rideshare,” “TNC,” or “delivery” exclusion matters. Some endorsements are written to exclude rideshare trips with companies like Uber or Lyft, but they may not clearly mention food‑only delivery, or they may use “transportation network company” in a way that does not obviously fit how a given food delivery app is regulated. Small wording differences can make a big difference in whether the insurer can legally refuse to pay, which is why your lawyer will want the full policy, all endorsements, and the denial letter—not just the declarations page

Argue That the Platform’s Coverage Is Primary, Not Contingent

When a delivery driver is on an active order (they’ve accepted it and are on the way to the restaurant or the customer), the big apps describe their coverage as commercial auto liability for that trip, not just a tiny “maybe, if everything else fails” add‑on. If the driver’s personal policy does not apply because it has a clear exclusion for delivery or commercial use, then there is no personal coverage in that lane for this crash. In that situation, the app’s commercial policy should act as the first line of coverage for the person who was hit, not sit in the background waiting for a personal policy that doesn’t apply.

Put differently, a personal policy that is excluded for this kind of driving is very different from a personal policy that applies and has simply used up its limits. A denial based on a delivery or “for‑hire” exclusion means the personal policy is out of the picture for this loss, so the app’s commercial policy is the only liability policy left that was written for this type of trip.

To make this argument, your lawyer has to look at the actual commercial policy wording, not just what the company says on its website. The key part is the “other insurance” clause, which explains how the app’s policy interacts with any other available coverage. If that clause says the app’s coverage is “excess over any other applicable insurance,” and the personal policy is not applicable at all because of a delivery exclusion, then there is nothing for the app’s coverage to sit on top of—so in practical terms, the platform’s policy becomes the one that should respond. Texas courts have not squarely decided this issue for every gig‑delivery situation yet, but this is a common and reasonable way your lawyer can push back when both insurers try to dodge responsibility.

Use the Personal Insurer’s Denial as a Sword, Not a Shield

If you get a written denial letter from the driver’s personal auto insurance company saying “no coverage because they were doing delivery work,” that letter can actually help your claim against the app’s insurance. The app and its insurer should not be allowed to say, on the one hand, that the driver was just using a personal car like anyone else, and on the other hand that the driver’s personal insurance “should have” paid. If the driver was doing paid delivery at the time of the crash, and the personal insurer says that kind of driving is excluded, that supports the argument that the platform’s commercial coverage for delivery trips should step in.

Your lawyer can send a demand to the app’s insurance company with a copy of the personal insurer’s denial letter attached. The demand can spell out that the denial confirms the personal policy does not apply to this crash, so the app’s policy is the one that should respond as the main (or only) liability coverage. Texas has deadlines and unfair‑claims‑practice rules that are designed to discourage insurance companies from ignoring or slow‑walking valid claims, and your lawyer can use those tools to push for a clear written answer instead of endless finger‑pointing.

The Step-Down Provision Fight

Some commercial delivery insurance policies have what’s called a step‑down provision. That’s fine print that says: if the driver’s own personal auto policy doesn’t apply or doesn’t exist, the commercial policy’s limits drop down to the bare Texas minimum required by law. In Texas, that minimum is 30/60/25 – at least $30,000 for one injured person, $60,000 total if several people are hurt, and $25,000 for property damage in a crash. If a step‑down clause kicks in, a policy that looks like “$1 million in coverage” on paper can suddenly act like it’s only a $30,000 policy for your injuries.

Courts in different states have reached mixed results on whether these step‑down provisions are enforceable, and it can turn heavily on the exact wording and the state’s law.

In Texas, whether a step‑down clause that wipes out most of the commercial coverage is valid will depend on the specific language in that policy and how current Texas cases read similar clauses, so it is a fact‑ and policy‑specific fight. One argument your lawyer can make is that if the company advertised or held out its commercial policy as “real” protection for crashes, but then uses a step‑down to slash coverage right when the driver’s personal policy doesn’t apply, that starts to look like illusory or misleading coverage instead of what you were led to expect.

If the Gap Is Real: UM/UIM as the Backstop

If the coverage gap persists after all of the above, your own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage is the safety net. A driver whose personal insurer denies and whose platform coverage is limited by a step-down provision is effectively operating as an underinsured motorist. Your own UM/UIM coverage applies to those facts. Under the Texas Insurance Code, UM/UIM coverage must be offered to every auto policyholder, though it can be rejected in writing.

File the UM/UIM claim with your own carrier while simultaneously pursuing the platform’s coverage. Do not let your own insurer pressure you into settling the UM/UIM claim while the platform coverage dispute is unresolved. The two claims are not mutually exclusive in the early stages of a case. Your own insurer also has subrogation rights if it pays your claim and you later recover from the platform, so make sure your lawyer coordinates both tracks to avoid leaving money with your insurer rather than in your pocket.

The Bad Faith Angle

Texas law says insurance companies are not allowed to play games with valid claims. They are forbidden from using unfair or deceptive tricks like misrepresenting what the policy covers, ignoring important evidence, or denying or dragging out a claim when there is no reasonable basis to do so. Those rules live in the Texas Insurance Code and in Texas “bad faith” case law, and they are meant to protect people from being treated unfairly by insurance companies.

The exact legal remedies and penalties depend on who is bringing the claim and what kind of claim it is. Texas gives the policyholder (the person who bought the insurance) stronger tools than it gives an injured third party who is making a liability claim against someone else’s policy. For example, Chapter 541 allows a policyholder to seek actual damages, attorney’s fees, and potentially up to three times their damages if they can prove the insurer knowingly broke the rules, while Chapter 542’s prompt‑payment penalties—extra interest and fees when the company busts statutory deadlines—generally apply to first‑party claims, not to a typical third‑party injury claim like yours.

What this means for you is simple: if an app’s insurer or a driver’s insurer is clearly stonewalling or twisting the policy language, that’s not just “how insurance works”—it may be something your lawyer can use to put real pressure on them using Texas bad‑faith and unfair‑practice laws. You don’t have to know the statute numbers; your job is to keep all letters, emails, and notes about phone calls, so your lawyer has the paper trail to work with

The bad faith angle is not a standalone strategy in most cases. It is leverage. An insurer that knows you are tracking its claim-handling conduct and documenting every delay and misrepresentation is an insurer that settles differently than one that believes you are just trying to close the file.

What This Means for the Evidence You Need Immediately

Every coverage argument above depends on proving which period the driver was in at the moment of the crash. The app data, GPS records, and order acceptance timestamps are not just useful evidence. They are the predicate for which coverage theory you are pursuing. Without them, you are arguing about tiers in the abstract. With them, you can prove exactly when the delivery started and whether the commercial policy was fully engaged. Get the preservation letter out before anything else.

Texas Law and Liability

These cases are Texas negligence cases. Every driver in Texas owes everyone else on the road a duty to use ordinary care—things like paying attention, following the speed limit, and obeying traffic signals. When a driver breaks a Texas traffic safety law that is meant to protect people from exactly the kind of harm that happened, that violation can be strong evidence of negligence and may support a negligence per se theory under Texas law. In simple terms, if the law was designed to prevent this kind of crash and it was broken, you usually do not have to spend as much time proving the conduct was unreasonable—the violation itself can serve as the breach, subject to the specific requirements Texas courts apply in each case.

Texas uses a proportionate responsibility system under Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. You can still recover money as long as you are not more than 50% at fault for the crash. If a jury decides you are 51% or more to blame, you get nothing, which is why insurance companies and defense lawyers work hard to push your percentage of fault as high as they can. Any money you do recover is reduced by your percentage of fault—for example, a $100,000 verdict becomes $70,000 if you are found 30% at fault.

For timing, Texas has a two‑year statute of limitations for most personal injury claims, including car and delivery‑driver crashes. That deadline comes from Section 16.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. If you miss it, your claim is usually barred completely, no matter how strong the facts might have been, which is why talking to a lawyer early is so important.

Texas also now regulates transportation network and delivery network companies together in Chapter 2402 of the Texas Occupations Code. That chapter and related Insurance Code provisions (like Chapter 1954) set certain insurance requirements for app‑based rideshare trips, and recent amendments extend the regulatory framework to “delivery network companies” such as food‑only platforms, but Texas does not require those apps to fill every coverage gap that can exist between a driver’s personal policy and the platform’s commercial policy.

Evidence That Disappears Fast

• App and GPS data: DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Grubhub maintain timestamped records of every delivery: when the order was accepted, the driver’s GPS coordinates at every point, speed during the trip, and when delivery was completed or cancelled. This data determines which coverage period applies and therefore which coverage argument you are making.
• Dashcam footage: Many delivery drivers have dashcams. Footage can show traffic signals, the driver’s speed, phone use, and the exact dynamics of the crash. Once the driver learns of a claim, footage is at risk of deletion. Preservation demands must go out within days.
• Restaurant and business surveillance footage: The restaurant where the order was picked up, nearby businesses, and traffic cameras may have captured the crash or the driver’s behavior immediately before impact. Most commercial systems overwrite footage within 24 to 72 hours. This is a first-48-hours task.
• The driver’s platform history: Prior deactivations, safety complaints, and incident records are relevant to a negligent hiring claim. This information is inside the platform’s database and requires formal discovery to obtain.
• Phone records: If distracted driving was a factor, the driver’s cell records showing calls, texts, or app use at the time of the crash are obtainable through a subpoena. Carriers do not keep these indefinitely.

A spoliation letter is a formal written demand sent to the platform, its insurer, and the driver requiring preservation of all evidence related to the crash. Once a party receives a spoliation letter and intentionally destroys evidence anyway, Texas courts can instruct a jury to infer that the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to the party that destroyed it. Sending that letter within the first day or two after hiring a lawyer is one of the first actions a competent lawyer takes in these cases.

What an Experienced Lawyer Does Differently

First 48 Hours

• Send spoliation letters to the platform’s registered agent, the platform’s insurer, and the driver personally, covering GPS records, app logs, dashcam footage, background check records, and driver platform history.
• Send a preservation demand to the restaurant where the order originated, requesting security footage and order timestamps.
• Dispatch an investigator to identify and secure nearby surveillance camera footage before overwrite cycles run.
• Pull the driver’s public records: license status, traffic violation history, and criminal history relevant to the background check the platform ran.

First Two Weeks

• Issue a formal records demand to the platform for the driver’s complete trip history, background check documentation, performance record, prior complaints, and any deactivation history.
• Obtain the police report and evaluate whether the officer correctly identified the driver’s app status and delivery platform.
• Identify and document every applicable insurance policy: the platform’s commercial policy (and obtain the full policy, not just the declarations page), the driver’s personal auto policy and any TNC endorsements, your own UM/UIM coverage, and any med pay or PIP.
• Send a coverage demand to the platform’s commercial carrier accompanied by any personal insurer denial, framing the platform’s policy as the first-responding coverage.
• Begin building the medical documentation that links your specific injuries to the crash, starting with emergency records from the day of the incident.

Before Filing Suit

• Investigate the driver’s platform history for a negligent hiring claim, including any prior incidents that screening missed or ignored.
• Retain an accident reconstruction expert if liability is expected to be disputed.
• Analyze the contractor agreement and how the app actually directed driver behavior as the basis for a right-to-control argument.
• Review the platform’s commercial policy for step-down provisions and “other insurance” clauses and prepare to challenge any step-down that would reduce coverage below the stated limit.
• Calculate full damages: past and future medical expenses, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, and, where the facts support it, exemplary damages for gross negligence under Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
• File suit before settling if necessary to obtain the platform’s internal records through formal discovery. Platforms settle differently when a prepared trial firm is on the other side.

Every Source of Recovery: The Full Picture

A lawyer who only pursues the driver leaves most of the available money on the table. Here is the full picture, roughly in order of expected recovery value.

1. The platform’s commercial auto policy. For active deliveries, the commercial liability policy is almost always the largest available source. Getting it to pay as primary coverage, not contingent coverage, is the first coverage fight. Defeating any step-down provision is the second.
2. Direct negligence claims against the platform. If the driver’s background had disqualifying information the platform missed or ignored, you have a claim against the company’s assets independent of its insurance policy. Direct negligence claims against well-capitalized public companies are where the largest recoveries often originate.
3. The driver personally. Most delivery drivers have limited personal assets, but the driver is always named as a defendant.
4. The driver’s personal auto policy. Most personal policies exclude commercial use, but that exclusion is contested on a case-by-case basis. If the exclusion language is ambiguous or an endorsement was improperly noticed, the personal policy remains available.
5. Your own UM/UIM coverage. If any gap in platform or driver coverage persists, your own policy is the backstop. Coordinate carefully to protect subrogation rights and maximize net recovery.

What the Defense Will Argue, and How to Beat It

The driver was an independent contractor, so we are not responsible. The response has two parts: first, negligent hiring and retention claims do not require an employment relationship; second, whether right-to-control actually supports contractor status is a fact question, not an automatic conclusion from a contractor agreement. Discovery into how the app directs driver behavior is where this argument gets contested.

The driver had no active delivery at the time of the crash. The platforms keep timestamped records. If the driver had an active order, those records prove it. If records are missing after a preservation letter was sent, the spoliation inference becomes a litigation tool. If the driver truly was between orders, the coverage fight shifts to Period 1 coverage and your UM/UIM carrier.

Our coverage is contingent, and the personal policy should have responded first. This is the coverage sandwich argument. The response is the personal insurer’s own denial letter, the “other insurance” clause in the platform’s commercial policy, and the argument that a wholly excluded personal policy leaves the platform’s commercial policy as the only first-layer coverage available.

Your injuries are pre-existing. Defense lawyers will review your entire prior medical history looking for prior treatment to the same body parts. A detailed medical narrative starting with same-day treatment, documenting new injuries and the aggravation of any prior conditions, is the answer. Consistent treatment strengthens this narrative. Gaps undercut it.

You were comparatively at fault. Under Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, every percentage point of fault assigned to you reduces the recovery. Surveillance footage, witness statements, and accident reconstruction testimony that establish what actually happened are the most effective counters.

Mistakes That Damage Your Case in the First Week

• Giving a recorded statement to any insurance adjuster before speaking with a lawyer. The adjuster calling you works for the platform or the driver. You are not required to give a recorded statement to an adverse insurer. Anything you say will be used to minimize your claim.
• Posting on social media. Defense lawyers and adjusters monitor social media actively in these cases. Any photo or post that suggests you are less injured than claimed will appear in deposition. Lock your accounts.
• Delaying medical treatment. A gap between the crash and your first medical visit is used to argue you were not actually hurt, or that something else caused the problem. Get evaluated immediately.
• Signing a broad medical authorization. The platform’s insurer may send a medical release before you hire a lawyer. A broad authorization gives them access to your entire medical history, which they will use to argue pre-existing conditions. Do not sign anything without a lawyer reviewing it.
• Accepting the first settlement offer. Initial offers are calibrated to what the adjuster thinks you know, not what the case is worth. Once you sign a release, you cannot go back even if your injuries are worse than they appeared.

Qué hacer ahora mismo

1. Get medical care immediately. Document every symptom, every visit, every provider.
2. Write down everything you remember: the driver’s name, the delivery app logo on the vehicle or bag, vehicle description, license plate, time of day, and what the driver said at the scene.
3. Photograph both vehicles, your injuries, the crash scene, and any delivery bags or app devices visible in the driver’s car.
4. Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance company before speaking with a lawyer.
5. Do not post about the crash or your activities on social media.
6. Do not sign any document an insurance adjuster sends you, including medical authorizations or releases.
7. Contact a Texas personal injury lawyer who has handled gig delivery cases. The clock on evidence preservation starts the moment the crash occurs.

How Varghese Summersett Handles These Cases

At Varghese Summersett, we handle personal injury cases as trial lawyers, not as settlement processors. When you are hit by a DoorDash, Uber Eats, or Grubhub driver, we begin by identifying every potential defendant and every available insurance policy. Spoliation letters go out within the first couple of days after you hire us. We obtain the actual platform commercial policy, not just the coverage disclosure page, and we review it for step-down provisions and other-insurance clauses before sending the first demand. We obtain the driver’s platform history and background check records through discovery and evaluate whether the platform’s hiring or retention conduct supports a direct negligence claim against the company. We calculate full damages across every category Texas law permits.

Settlement-volume firms that resolve cases without filing suit rarely obtain the platform’s internal records and rarely fight the coverage sandwich head-on. Those records are where negligent hiring cases are built, and the coverage fight is where the difference between a partial recovery and a full one is won or lost. Getting both requires a firm willing to take a case to trial if the offer is inadequate.

We have offices in Fort Worth, Dallas, Southlake, and Houston. Personal injury cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing unless we recover for you. The consultation is free.

If you or a family member was injured by a delivery driver, contact us today. The evidence in these cases starts disappearing within hours of the crash, and so does your leverage. Call 817-203-2220 to schedule your free consultation with an experienced personal injury attorney today.