procuring all five wastewater easements and that the allegations underlying CONA’s negligent misrepresentation, statutory fraud, and aiding and abetting fraud claims all implicate the same negligence-based conduct. Therefore, although labeled as non-negligence claims, CONA’s claims for statutory fraud and aiding and abetting fraud are not claims other than ones for negligence. Instead, they are recharacterized claims for negligence arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional and, thus, are subject to civil practice and remedies code section 150.002’s certificate of merit requirement. Compare CH2M Hill Trigon, Inc. v. J7 Contractors, Inc., No. 10-10-00058-CV, 2010 WL 3619898, at *7-9 (Tex.App.-Waco Sept. 15, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>) with Curtis, 315 S.W.3d at 107-08 (holding
holding that counterclaims for defamation and tortious interference constituted distinct affirmative claims for relief not claims for recoupment and thus were timebarred under indiana trial rule 13j1 holding state law tortious interference and unjust enrichment claims preempted where there was no finding of actual fraud and the conduct was based on nothing more than misconduct before the pto holding that where both defamation and tortious interference claims are pled and are based on same facts minnesota law requires the application of the actual malice standard to tortious interference claims holding that claims of tortious interference and fraud constituted claims of professional negligence and thus required certificate of merit because underlying complaint was that appellee was injured by appellants failing to disclose information and providing inaccurate information recognizing relevance of information and that need for this information outweighs the burden to appellants