and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions, then jurors must be allowed to do so.” Id. at 822. “A reviewing court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the trier-of-fact, so long as the evidence falls within this zone of reasonable disagreement.” Id. Although the reviewing court must “consider evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and indulge every reasonable inference that would support it[,] ... if the evidence allows of only one inference, neither jurors nor the reviewing court may disregard it.” Id. Damages in an extra-contractual claim must be different than simply claiming the benefits of the policy, because these damages are recoverable m a breach of contract claim. See Provident Am. Ins. Co. v. Castaneda, 988 S.W.2d 189, 198-99 (Tex.1998) (<HOLDING>); United, Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Gordon, 103
holding that recovery under the north carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices act  is limited to those situations when a plaintiff can show that plaintiff detrimentally relied upon a statement or misrepresentation and he or she suffered actual injury as a proximate result of defendants deceptive statement or misrepresentation  holding that the plain language of the act appears to permit private actions by corporations both in permitting any persondefined to include corporations  to bring an action and in its broad definition of the unlawful acts and practices including any unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of any trade or commerce within new hampshire holding that the consideration of the fact that claimant collected unemployment benefits while he was allegedly disabled was not a ground for reversal where there was other medical and vocational evidence supporting denial of benefits and claimants receipt of unemployment benefits was not decisive factor in denial of benefits holding that statutory damages were appropriate for each discrete violation of that states deceptive trade practices act holding that msurers allegedly deceptive acts or practices did not cause any injury independent of the denial of policy benefits