the one in this case: A recognized exception to this duty to segregate arises when the attorney’s fees rendered are in connection with claims arising out of the same transaction and are so interrelated that their “prosecution or defense entails proof or denial of essentially the same facts.” Flint & Assoc. v. Intercontinental Pipe & Steel, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 622, 624-25 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, writ denied). Therefore, when the causes of action involved in the suit are dependent upon the same set of facts or circumstances and thus are “interwined to the point of being inseparable,” the party suing for attorney’s fees may recover the entire amount covering all claims. Gill Sav. Ass’n v. Chair King, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 674, 680 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Aetna Cas. & Sur. v. Wild, 944 S.W.2d 37, 41
holding that a failure of proof regarding a required element of a case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial and further analysis unnecessary holding segregation was necessary because breachofcontract claim required proof of different elements than other claims recognizing that production of a written insurance policy was unnecessary to prove the existence of the policy because the proof required was proof of the fact of insurance and not of the contents of a writing holding that contract and tort claims were capable of segregation in part because these claims required proof of different elements holding trial court should have required segregation because tort claims entailed proof of facts unnecessary for proof of the contract claim