misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy. As discussed above, we review the trial court’s determination of this issue de novo. To analyze this issue, we must decide issues raised by the parties regarding the legal standard to apply in making this segregation determination. Then, we apply that legal standard to the record in this case to determine if the trial court reversibly erred in determining that segregation as between the Theft Act claim and the remaining claims is required. 1. What is the proper legal standard for determining whether the “inextricably intertwined” exception applies? The parties, most courts addressing this issue, and this court all agree that the Sterling case provides the legal standard for determining segregation issues ex.App.Amarillo 1997, writ denied) (<HOLDING>); Panizo v. YMCA of the Greater Houston Area,
holding that tort claims were arbitrable because they arose out of and were related to contract holding segregation was required in part because the claims have significantly different elements than the claim for which attorneys fees are recoverable holding that contract and tort claims were capable of segregation in part because these claims required proof of different elements holding segregation was necessary because breachofcontract claim required proof of different elements than other claims holding trial court should have required segregation because tort claims entailed proof of facts unnecessary for proof of the contract claim