are (1) two or more persons; (2) an object to be accomplished; (3) a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action; (4) one or more unlawful, overt acts; and (5) damages as a proximate result. Thomas, 960 S.W.2d at 112-13. The Holubs’ and HTC’s no-evidence summary-judgment motion challenged all of these elements. “Civil conspiracy is a derivative action premised on an underlying tort.” Gonzales v. Am. Title Co. of Houston, 104 S.W.3d 588, 594 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (citing Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 681 (Tex.1996)). The evidence examined in the previous section, which the Law Firm produced in support of its conspiracy claim, fails to raise a fact issue on the element of a meeting of the minds on an object or course of action. See id. at 599 (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we hold that the trial
holding that a premature notice of appeal from an interlocutory summary judgment was deemed effective when the trial court granted a severance and rendered the summary judgment final holding that escrow agent owed duty only to parties to escrow agreement not to party to tangential contract further holding that trial court correctly rendered summary judgment on neghgence claim against escrow agent on this ground holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that summary judgment against escrow agent to closing was properly granted when fraud was alleged basis of conspiracy and when nothing in the noevidence summary judgment record supports the borrowers claim that american title was a party to a plan to defraud them