as well. In Z.A.O., the prevailing party prevailed in a contract dispute. Id. at 550. The problem in Z.A.O. was that the prevailing party failed to segregate the amount of attorney’s fees between its tort and contract causes of action. Id. Because the prevailing party was not entitled to recover attorney’s fees on its tort cause of action, the court remanded the attorney’s fees issue. Id. at 550-51. We find that these cases do not support Appellee’s argument. Additionally, we have previously found that a party waives its right to recover attorney’s fees when it fails to put on evidence of attorney’s fees and fails to request the trial court to submit a question on attorney’s fees to the jury. Fuqua v. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co., 315 S.W.3d 552, 560 (Tex.App.—Eastland 2010, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, we hold that, under Rule 279,
holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees holding that oncors request for the trial judge rather than the jury to determine the reasonableness of its attorneys fees and the failure to submit the question of attorneys fees to the jury resulted in a waiver of oncors claim for the recovery of attorneys fees holding that the court of appeals erred in modifying the judgment to include attorneys fees when the trial courts refusal to grant attorneys fees was not the subject of a point of error