failed to answer the suit or were consciously indifferent to it. Furthermore, we find nothing in the record to contradict appellants’ assertions. The affidavits of both Cain and Peña are attached to appellants’ motion for new trial. These affidavits establish that appellants’ failure to answer was a direct result of a miscommuni-cation between the City of Laredo and its insurance administrator. Appellee made no response to appellants’ motion and there is nothing in the record to contradict the factual allegations contained in the affidavits. In the absence of controverting evidence that appellants’ failure to appear was due to an intentional act or conscious indifference, appellants’ affidavits should be taken as true. Evans, 889 S.W.2d at 269; see Bank One, 830 S.W.2d at 84-85 (<HOLDING>). As such, appellants have satisfied the first
holding that where plaintiff did not controvert defendants assertion of mistaken belief conscious indifference was negated holding that a sentence of incarceration would constitute deliberate indifference to defendants medical needs holding that failure to warn plaintiff of error in filling her prescription was sufficient evidence of conscious indifference to plaintiffs rights to support an award for punitive damages holding witnesss statement that firefighter entered intersection without stopping and witness did not hear brakes being applied was not evidence of recklessness or conscious indifference holding experts testimony that continued use of allegedly defective probes showed conscious indifference was conclusory opinion