and punitive damages in the settlement amount. We have the option to consider the Ellen-ders’ allocation argument to determine if it will support the court of appeals’ judgment denying Mobil a settlement credit or to remand the issue to the court of appeals. See First Baptist Church v. Bexar County Appraisal Review Bd., 833 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Tex.1992). To serve judicial economy, we choose to consider the allocation argument. A defendant cannot receive credit for settlement amounts representing punitive damages. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 33.002(c)(2) (“This chapter does not apply to ... a claim for exemplary damages included in an action to which this chapter otherwise applies.”); see also Hill v. Budget Fin. & Thrift Co., 383 S.W.2d 79, 81 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1964, no writ) (<HOLDING>); Howard v. General Cable Corp., 674 F.2d 351,
holding that punitive damages are not allowed under the flsa holding tcpa is remedial statute and that statutory damages are not punitive damages holding that a defendant cannot receive credit for settlement amounts representing punitive damages which are not common damages but are individual in nature holding that punitive damages are not fines holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract