to take down everything the insured said because he talked too fast. Additionally, the court held that, because the insurer had not “directed attention” to the insured’s failure to sign the EUO, further compliance was waived. Hogan, 135 S.W.2d at 228. In this case, Farmers made several requests that Perrotta sign and return the EUO. Unlike in Hogan, Perrotta never provided a reason for not signing and returning the EUO, and Farmers never waived further compliance with the EUO provision of the policy. Farmers included the affidavit of Mike Stevens, an adjuster for Farmers, in its summary judgment motion. In the affidavit, Stevens states that Perrotta “never signed and returned [the EUO] as requested and as required by [the] policy.” Per-rott 79, 382 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1992, no writ) (<HOLDING>); see also Guerra v. Sentry Ins., 927 S.W.2d
holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract holding a party to a contract who is himself in default cannot maintain a suit for its breach