as well as deposition testimony in the record that suggests Lillis understood he would be allocated compression costs under the Agreement. A party’s'interpretation of an agreement is parol evidence and cannot be used to create ambiguity or show motive. Anglo-Dutch Petroleum Int’l, Inc. v. Greenberg Peden, P.C. 352 S.W.3d 445, 452 (Tex.2011); see also Italian Cowboy, 341 S.W.3d at 333-34 (“Only where a contract is ambiguous may a court consider the parties’ interpretation ....” (quoting David J. Sacks, P.C. v. Haden, 266 S.W.3d 447, 450-51 (Tex.2008) (per curiam))). Both Lillis’s acquiescence and his testimony are evidence of subjective intent that we cannot consider to contradict the provision’s unambiguous legal meaning. Sun Oil Co. (Del.) v. Madeley, 626 S.W.2d 726, 732 (Tex.1981) (<HOLDING>). Amici have made it clear that downstream
holding method of accounting in administering a contract was inadmissible evidence of a partys interpretation holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation holding that where multiple agencies are charged with administering a statute a single agencys interpretation is generally not entitled to chevron deference but concluding that there would be no comparable concern if all three agencies charged with administering the statute in question pressed the same interpretation before this court recognizing this method holding that the trial courts exclusion of evidence about a partys damages was at best harmless error because the partys method of calculating damages contravened indiana law and was without merit