$2.8 Million BBQ Sauce Burn Verdict Against Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Now Fuels an Insurance Showdown

A 225th Civil District Court jury in Bexar County, Texas awarded Genesis Monita $2,815,925 in January 2025 after she suffered second-degree burns from a cup of barbecue sauce served at nearly 190 degrees at a Bill Miller Bar-B-Q drive-thru in San Antonio. The jury found the restaurant chain 100% liable and grossly negligent, delivering its verdict in less than two hours. Now, more than a year later, the case has entered a second legal arena: Bill Miller's own insurer is suing to avoid paying a dime of that judgment.

Case at a Glance

• Verdict: $2,815,925
• Case Type: Premises Liability / Gross Negligence
• Court: 225th Civil District Court, Bexar County, Texas
• Verdict Date: January 17, 2025
• Plaintiff: Genesis Monita
• Defendant: Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises, LLC
• Plaintiff Attorney: Lawrence Morales II

What Happened at the Bill Miller Drive-Thru?

On the morning of May 19, 2023, Genesis Monita, then an 18-year-old San Antonio high school senior, pulled through the Bill Miller Bar-B-Q drive-thru on SW Loop 410 with her sister. She ordered breakfast tacos with barbecue sauce. After receiving her food, she pulled into a nearby parking space to eat.

When she reached into the bag and removed the small plastic cup of sauce, it was so hot she immediately dropped it. The sauce spilled onto her right thigh, causing second-degree burns and permanent scarring.

Testing and court evidence revealed the sauce had been served at 189 degrees Fahrenheit. Texas food service guidelines cap hot-held sauces at 135 degrees. Bill Miller's own internal policy set a minimum serving temperature of 165 degrees. The sauce that burned Monita was 54 degrees above the state guideline and 24 degrees above what the company itself required.

Monita's attorneys also argued the restaurant violated its own policy by serving the sauce in a thin plastic cup rather than a styrofoam container, which contributed to the injury.

Why Did the Jury Award $1.89 Million in Punitive Damages?

The jury did not treat this as an isolated mistake. Plaintiff attorney Lawrence Morales II told jurors that a similar burn had occurred at the same location approximately two years earlier and that Bill Miller had failed to address the problem.

"How many more people need to be burned by the barbecue sauce for Bill Miller to fix it?" Morales said during trial, according to local news coverage.

After closing arguments, the jury of six men and six women deliberated for less than two hours before returning a verdict finding Bill Miller 100% at fault. The damages broke down as follows:

• $925,925 in actual damages, covering medical expenses, past and future physical pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment
• $1,890,000 in punitive damages, based on a finding of gross negligence

The punitive damages figure reflects the jury's view that Bill Miller's conduct went beyond carelessness. Under Texas law, punitive damages require a finding that the defendant acted with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.

"We feel very pleased by the results of this case," Morales said following the verdict. "Genesis just wanted justice."

Bill Miller Bar-B-Q's defense argued that Monita was aware the sauce was always served hot and that her own actions caused the spill. The jury rejected that argument entirely.

Now the Insurer Is Fighting the Bill

Winning a verdict is one thing. Collecting it is another.

On April 7, 2026, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a court declaration that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify Bill Miller Bar-B-Q for the Monita judgment. The case is Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02826.

Mt. Hawley's argument centers on a self-insured retention endorsement in the commercial general liability policy it issued to Bill Miller. That endorsement required Bill Miller to handle and fund claims up to $1,000,000 per occurrence before the insurer's coverage kicked in. It also required Bill Miller to provide immediate written notice to Mt. Hawley when certain triggers were met, including any lawsuit involving serious burns, any suit seeking punitive damages, and any claim exceeding 50% of the retention amount.

The Monita case triggered all three.

According to Mt. Hawley's filing, Bill Miller did not notify the insurer of the incident, the original petition, or the amended petition adding punitive damages until on or about January 21, 2025, after the jury had already returned its verdict. That gap stretches more than a year from the date the lawsuit was filed. Mt. Hawley disclaimed coverage by letter on March 26, 2025, before filing the federal action.

The insurer raises two separate grounds for denying coverage. First, it contends that Bill Miller's failure to provide timely notice breached an express condition of the policy and that Mt. Hawley was prejudiced because it had no opportunity to investigate, participate in defense strategy, or pursue settlement before liability was determined. Second, Mt. Hawley argues that the $1,890,000 punitive damages award is not insurable as a matter of New York law, which governs the policy under a choice-of-law provision.

No court ruling has been issued, and Bill Miller has not yet presented its position.

What This Case Signals for Plaintiff Attorneys

The Bill Miller verdict illustrates two realities plaintiff lawyers know well.

First, juries respond to evidence of prior knowledge. When a defendant can be shown to have been aware of a recurring hazard and failed to correct it, punitive damages become a real possibility. The speed of the jury's deliberations here reflects how clearly the evidence landed.

Second, a verdict is the beginning of the collection fight, not the end. The Mt. Hawley coverage dispute is a reminder that large judgments against commercial defendants often trigger insurer challenges, particularly when notice obligations under self-insured retention policies were missed. Plaintiff attorneys pursuing similar food service or premises cases should anticipate this dynamic from the outset and factor commercial insurance structures into their case strategy early.

Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself. Or if you've been seriously injured by a restaurant's negligence, find plaintiff personal injury lawyers in Texas with a proven trial record.

FAQ

Q: What are punitive damages, and why were they awarded here? A: Punitive damages are awarded on top of compensatory damages when a jury finds that a defendant's conduct was especially reckless or malicious. In Texas, a gross negligence finding is required. Here, the jury concluded that Bill Miller's conscious disregard for customer safety, including serving sauce far above safe temperatures and ignoring a prior burn incident, justified the additional $1,890,000 award.

Q: What is a self-insured retention, and how does it differ from a deductible? A: A self-insured retention (SIR) requires the policyholder to pay and manage all costs up to a set dollar threshold before the insurer has any obligation. Unlike a deductible, an SIR also typically requires the policyholder to handle defense duties within that layer. If the policyholder fails to meet notice or cooperation requirements attached to the SIR, the insurer may argue its coverage obligations never attached.

Q: Can an insurer refuse to pay a verdict because its policyholder failed to give timely notice? A: In many states, yes. Late notice can void coverage entirely if the insurer can show it was prejudiced by the delay, or if the policy contains strict notice conditions. The Mt. Hawley case will turn on whether Bill Miller's failure to report before trial triggers that consequence under New York federal court applying the applicable policy terms. Mt. Hawley has also raised a separate argument that punitive damages are not insurable under New York law, which could eliminate $1.89 million of the judgment from coverage entirely regardless of the notice issue.