1989), modified, 797 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. 1990).... Sterling, 822 S.W.2d at 11-12. The difficulty arises in deciding how to apply this legal standard. Britannia makes two alternative arguments regarding the legal standard for the “inextricably intertwined” exception: (1) The Legal Elements Standard. In determining whether the defense of the claims entails proof or denial of essentially the same facts, this court must consider the facts Britannia would have to prove for each element of the different claims to see if the claims are proven by the same factual allegations and legal elements. (2) The Impracticability Standard. To show that it falls under the “inextricably intertwined” exception, a party should have to introduce speci nture, 50 S.W.3d 531, 550-51 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); AU Pharm., Inc. v. Boston, 986 S.W.2d 331,
holding that contract and tort claims were capable of segregation in part because these claims required proof of different elements holding segregation was required in part because the claims have significantly different elements than the claim for which attorneys fees are recoverable holding segregation was necessary because breachofcontract claim required proof of different elements than other claims holding trial court should have required segregation because tort claims entailed proof of facts unnecessary for proof of the contract claim holding breachofcontract claim was preempted