By Michael Shemtoub, trial attorney, Beverly Law. Updated November 2026.
Burned because of someone else?
Leave your name and phone. We call back today, in English or Spanish. The consultation is free and confidential.
Free consultation · English y Español · No fees or costs unless we win
Beverly Law is not affiliated with Starbucks.
The drive-thru and the cup supply chain
| Starbucks fact | Figure | Source |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. company-operated stores that were drive-thru locations | 58%, as of March 29, 2020 | Starbucks 8-K |
| U.S. company-operated stores | 10,047, as of Sept. 28, 2025 | Starbucks 10-K |
| U.S. licensed stores | 6,813, as of Sept. 28, 2025 | Starbucks 10-K |
| Where cups come from | “paper and plastic products, such as cups and cutlery, from several companies” | Starbucks 10-K |
Because Starbucks buys its cups from outside companies, the business that made a failed lid may be a separate defendant from the store.
Reported lid and handoff cases
| Case | Place and incident date | What the plaintiff alleged | Reported status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mogavero | Jacksonville, Fla., 2014 | Lid popped off at the drive-through; lids “prone to pop off when someone grabs the cup too high” | Jury found Starbucks 80% at fault, $100,000 (May 2017) |
| Mize | Houston, July 2014 | An employee “squeezed the coffee cup, causing the lid to pop off” | Sought up to $1 million; outcome not reported |
| Simms | Harris County, Texas, April 2021 | Lid came off when she handed back a “wrong coffee”; “failing lid” | Sought under $75,000; outcome not reported |
| Sevilla | West Covina, Calif., Oct. 8, 2021 | Lid slid off while she walked to her car after an in-store pickup | Starbucks’ summary judgment motion denied (tentative ruling, May 2024) |
| Evans | Lynwood, Calif., Aug. 25, 2022 | Employee “mishandled” the coffee; faulty lid | Pending when reported (Aug. 2024) |
| Hermes | Norwalk, Calif., April 2, 2023 | One cup not properly secured | Starbucks called the claims “without merit”; settled after removal to federal court, terms not disclosed (Jan. 2026) |
| Sanchez Avendano | North Hollywood, Calif., filed 2025 | Lid not properly fastened | Filed in Alhambra; outcome not reported |
| North Carolina suit | North Carolina | Americano lid “popped off without warning” | Removed to federal court, E.D.N.C. (Aug. 2025) |
| Walker | Wildomar, Calif., June 2026 | Lid popped off at the drive-thru | Filed 2026; Starbucks declined comment |
Sources: ABA Journal (Mogavero); ABA Journal (Mize); FOX 26 Houston (Simms); Sevilla ruling; Los Angeles Times via AOL (Evans); MyNewsLA (Hermes); KFI (Hermes settlement); AFP via Gulf News (Hermes, Sanchez Avendano); Law360 (North Carolina); ABC7 (Walker).
Mogavero is the only entry with a reported jury verdict. The others describe what a complaint alleged, and none has a reported finding of fault.
Sevilla shows what a lid case turns on. Mercedes Sevilla ordered online, picked up her coffee inside the West Covina store and says the lid slid off on the way to her car. In a tentative ruling denying Starbucks’ summary judgment motion, Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston wrote, “Starbucks has not presented any undisputed evidence that the lid was secured on the cup,” and said the spill “could have been caused by Starbucks’ employee failing to properly secure it, a defect in the lid itself” or something else. The same ruling notes the court had earlier sustained Starbucks’ demurrer to the strict liability and implied warranty claims, leaving negligence as the remaining claim.
Texas cases. In Mize, a Houston lawyer alleged an employee at the drive-up window squeezed the cup hard enough to pop the lid; Starbucks said it was “evaluating the customer’s claims and determining the appropriate next steps.” In Simms, Starbucks said, “We are aware of and investigating Ms. Simms’ claim.” Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou.
Temperature in Evans. Muriel Evans’ legal team says the coffee was 190 degrees. The Los Angeles Times reported that “Previous Starbucks guides have listed most hot beverages at between 150 and 170 degrees.” Starbucks said it takes all claims seriously “but we will not be commenting on pending litigation.”
Walker. Leota Walker reported second-degree burns and several weeks in the hospital, including surgery. ABC7 reported that her complaint points to online reports from customers about Starbucks lids.
Free burn injury case review
Tell us what happened. We will tell you plainly whether there is a case and what to do next. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Claims against cup and lid makers
When a lid releases under ordinary handling, the company that designed or made it can be a defendant. Tommy Piluyev’s 2020 suit over a Roseville drive-thru tea named Starbucks and Pactiv Packaging Inc., which the suit says supplied the cups and lids, on negligence and product liability theories (Click2Houston); Pactiv did not immediately respond to a request for comment (Fox Business). His case and other tea cases are on our Starbucks tea and hot water page.
Discovery about cup and packaging design is contested. In Shabdiz v. Starbucks, a suit over a hot drink bought at a store in the University Park area of Los Angeles, the plaintiff asked for cost-benefit reports comparing the cost of redesigning hot-beverage packaging with the cost of settling burn claims, ten years of burn-related settlement and verdict spending, and five years of financial statements. Starbucks sought a protective order, arguing the requests were premature because she had not yet made a prima facie case for punitive damages (MyNewsLA, Jan. 2026). In April 2026, ruling on her motions for Starbucks’ internal information about hot-beverage injury complaints, Judge Richard S. Kemalyan denied them for now, finding “Plaintiff did not adequately meet-and-confer before bringing the present motions” (MyNewsLA, April 2026).
| State | Product liability rule | Time limits |
|---|---|---|
| California | Manufacturer strictly liable for a defective product that causes injury (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products) | 2 years for personal injury (CCP § 335.1) |
| Texas | Products liability actions under CPRC ch. 82 | 2 years (§ 16.003); 15-year limit from the defendant’s sale of the product (§ 16.012) |
| Washington | Washington Product Liability Act (RCW 7.72.030) | 3 years from when the harm and its cause were, or should have been, discovered (RCW 7.72.060) |
Our defective products page covers product claims in more depth.
Preserving the lid and the video
The lid. Put it in a clean bag as it is. Do not press it back onto the cup or test it, and keep the cup, sleeve and carrier. Photograph the rim and any tab or plug before you bag it. In Sevilla, whether the lid was secured was the disputed fact, and a lid that has been bent back into place can no longer show how it failed.
The video. In Garcia v. Starbucks, the plaintiff’s lawyers said in-store video showed one drink pushed only partway into the carrier (Courthouse News); the result is on our Garcia page. Video can also help Starbucks. In a Denver tea suit reported in 2017, Starbucks said it had “video evidence that clearly contradicts the claims made by the plaintiff,” though reporters allowed to review it said the lid appeared secure but the video was not conclusive (FOX6). We did not find a published Starbucks policy on how long stores keep footage.
The request. Send a written request to the store and to Starbucks with the store address, date, time, lane and order number. Starbucks counts licensed stores separately from the ones it operates, so ask who runs the location. Our drive-thru burns page covers the same steps for other chains, such as Dunkin’.
If a child in the car was burned, see children burned by Starbucks drinks. Our main Starbucks burn page covers comparative fault and filing deadlines.
Talk to a burn injury lawyer
If a Starbucks lid or carrier failed and burned you, keep the lid and call Beverly Law at (310) 552-6959 for a free consultation in English or Spanish. Beverly Law takes lid and drive-thru burn cases in California and Washington. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou. You owe no fees or costs unless we win. More on our burn injury lawyer page.
Common questions
The lid popped off as the barista handed me the cup. Who is responsible?
Possibly the store, the lid maker or both. Mize alleged the employee squeezed the cup; other suits blame the lid itself. The lid is what tells you which.
Can I sue the company that made the lid?
You may be able to if the lid was defective. Piluyev named the supplier Pactiv Packaging alongside Starbucks.
I picked my drink up inside and the lid came off in the parking lot. Is that a drive-thru case?
It is a lid case. Sevilla involved an in-store pickup, and the judge’s tentative ruling denied Starbucks summary judgment, noting Starbucks had not presented undisputed evidence that the lid was secured.
Starbucks says its video shows the lid was on. Is my case over?
Not necessarily. In the Denver case, reporters who reviewed Starbucks’ video said it was not conclusive. Get the full footage preserved and reviewed.
How long does Starbucks keep drive-thru video?
We found no published policy. Send a written preservation request within days.
Ask a question
Not ready to call? Write your question and someone on our team will answer. No cost, no commitment.
Burn injury lawyer — Beverly Law
If you or your child was burned because of someone else in California, Texas and Washington, talk to a burn injury attorney. Free, confidential, English or Spanish. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Related pages
Sources
- Starbucks Corporation, Form 8-K exhibit 99.1 (quarter ended March 29, 2020): "58% of U.S. company-operated stores were d (sec.gov)
- Starbucks Corporation, Form 10-K for fiscal 2025 (U.S. store counts at Sept. 28, 2025; cups bought "from several compani (sec.gov)
- ABA Journal, Mogavero v. Starbucks, May 22, 2017 (abajournal.com)
- ABA Journal, Mize suit, Houston, June 22, 2016 (abajournal.com)
- FOX 26 Houston, Simms v. Starbucks, Sept. 1, 2021 (fox26houston.com)
- Los Angeles Superior Court tentative ruling, Sevilla v. Starbucks Corporation, No. 22STCV25883, Judge Lynette Gridiron W
- Los Angeles Times via AOL, Evans v. Starbucks (Lynwood) (aol.com)
- MyNewsLA, Hermes v. Starbucks (Norwalk), April 2, 2025 (mynewsla.com)
- KFI AM 640 (City News Service), Hermes settlement after removal to federal court, Jan. 14, 2026 (kfiam640.iheart.com)
- AFP via Gulf News, Hermes and Sanchez Avendano suits, April 2025 (gulfnews.com)
- Law360, North Carolina lid-design suit, Aug. 25, 2025 (law360.com)
- ABC7 Los Angeles, Walker suit, Wildomar, July 31, 2026 (abc7.com)
- Fox Business, Piluyev v. Starbucks and Pactiv Packaging, Sept. 18, 2020 (foxbusiness.com)
- KPRC Click2Houston, Piluyev suit (negligence and product liability), Sept. 21, 2020 (click2houston.com)
- MyNewsLA, Shabdiz v. Starbucks discovery dispute, Jan. 13, 2026 (mynewsla.com)
- MyNewsLA, Shabdiz v. Starbucks discovery ruling, April 20, 2026 (mynewsla.com)
- Courthouse News, Garcia post-trial ruling (store video), June 4, 2025 (courthousenews.com)
- FOX6 Milwaukee (Tribune Media Wire), Salas-Solano suit and Starbucks' video statement, Sept. 12, 2017 (fox6now.com)
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57 (scocal.stanford.edu)
- Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 82 (statutes.capitol.texas.gov)
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003 (statutes.capitol.texas.gov)
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.012 (statutes.capitol.texas.gov)
- RCW 7.72.030 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 7.72.060 (app.leg.wa.gov)
Important: This page is general information, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different; talk to a lawyer about yours. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou. Last reviewed: November 6, 2026.