Cosgrove’s breach of her promise to execute documents needed to correct errors and effectuate the provisions of the sales agreement, particularly the provision in which the parties agreed the Cades would reserve the mineral interests. “[A] breach of contract claim accrues when the contract is breached,” Stine, 80 S.W.3d at 592, and “‘[bjreach’ of a contract occurs when a party fails to perform an act that it has contractually promised to perform.” Greene v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 446 S.W.3d 761, 765 (Tex.2014). Here, Ms. Cosgrove did not — indeed, she could not — fail to perform her promise to correct the erroneous deed until after the Cades requested that she do so, just months before the Cades filed this suit. See Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Valero Energy Corp., 997 S.W.2d 203, 211 (Tex.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of
holding that party did not breach its agreement to indemnify contractor until contractor made a demand for indemnity and party refused to perform and it was only at this time that the statute of limitations began to run holding that subcontractor was not obligated to indemnify general contractor for general contractors own negligence where indemnification clause did not expressly state that subcontractor would indemnify general contractor for such negligence holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where government caused a delay in contract performance in which contractor was to use his own equipment original contractors costs increased and government refused to allow original contractor to perform at cost but allowed new contractor to use government equipment and paid new contractor a different rate holding that where owner and contractor frequently discussed progress of construction project and advancement of money by owner to contractor and contractor misappropriated some of the money debt was not excepted from discharge under bankruptcy code  523a2 because owner did not show that contractor had intent not to perform when the agreement was made holding that where oral loan was silent as to the time of repayment the statute of limitations began to run at the time the contract was made