(1981)). When one party to a contract commits a material breach of that contract, the other party is discharged or excused from further performance. Id.; see also Hernandez v. Gulf Grp. Lloyds, 875 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. 1994) (“A fundamental principle of co kewise establish that Bartush’s breach of contract by failing to pay Cimco the bala did not follow the precise submission format recommended by the supreme court in Mustang Pipeline Co. and set forth in the commentary to PJC 101.2, it nonetheless accomplished the objective of those recommended submissions by requiring the jury to determine—albeit through the combination of breach an Cimco and against Bartush on the-parties’ dueling breach of contract claims. See Mustang Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d at 199; Hernandez, 875 S.W.2d at 693 (<HOLDING>). The jury’s finding in question number 1 that
holding insureds firstoccurring immaterial breach of them insurance policy did not excuse insurer from its obligation to perform under the contract holding as a matter of law that insureds consented to assumption agreement by payment of premiums to reinsurer thus releasing original insurer from its obligation under the policy holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract holding that insureds breach of contract suit against insurer raised a coverage issue which was not settled by insurers payment of only part of what insured was claiming in breach of contract action holding that an immaterial breach does not deprive the insurer of the benefit of the bargain and thus cannot relieve the insurer of the contractual coverage obligation