did not present any summary judgment evidence controverting Farmers’s claim that he did not sign and return the original EUO. Perrotta’s own affidavit, included in his response to the summary judgment, does not claim that he ever signed or returned the EUO to Farmers. As such, Farmers’s summary judgment proof established as a matter of law that Perrotta did not comply with the EUO provision of the policy, and Perrotta presented no evidence to create a fact issue about his noncompliance. A clear reading of the policy, coupled with the summary judgment proof presented, shows that Perrotta breached a term of the policy. Perrotta’s own breach of the policy precludes him from maintaining suit for breach of contract. See Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. Nearen, 135 Tex. 50, 138 S.W.2d 1065, 1068 (1940) (<HOLDING>); D.E.W., Inc. v. Depco Forms, Inc., 827 S.W.2d
holding that a commercial buyer of defective goods cannot maintain a strict liability or negligence suit for economic loss to the product as the remedy is a breach of warranty suit under the ucc holding a party to a contract who is himself in default cannot maintain a suit for its breach holding that a party cannot claim damages for breach of contract unless he has shown his full compliance with the contract and is not acting in bad faith holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract