v. Gossett, 156 Tex. 252, 294 S.W.2d 377, 380 (1956), which held that “the naked and unsupported opinion or conclusion of a witness does not constitute evidence of probative force and will not support a jury finding even when admitted without objection.” Gossett involved testimony by two drivers and an accident investigator that a street had been designated one-way. We determined that the witnesses’ opinions provided no evidence that the street had been so designated, because they were “simply .. . conclusions,” lacking probative effect. Dall. Ry. & Terminal Co., 294 S.W.2d at 381. We have also recognized that a business owner’s conclusory or speculative testimony of lost profits will not support a judgment. See, e.g., Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we require “reasonably certain evidence
holding plaintiffs could not obtain compensation for both lost value and lost profit holding that testimony of owner that he lost approximately 200000 in income was legally insufficient because it did not provide any indication of how the damages were determined holding that owners testimony that he lost 200200 in income was legally insufficient because it did not provide any indication of how the owner determined what his lost profits were holding that lost profits were covered where the insureds product a motor used in a treadmill was defective and caused lost profits on the sale of the treadmills holding that a business owners testimony was insufficient to establish lost profits where he was not able to specify which contracts they lost how many they lost how much profit they would have had from the contracts or who would have awarded them contracts and explaining that the plaintiffs could have supported their lost profits with testimony that they had lost out on specific contracts but failed to do so