..., licensed and approved surgical/hospital facility ... through the obtaining of a Construction Loan.” [Emphasis added.] The phrase “through the obtaining of a Construction Loan” identifies the means by which the “Project” would be funded and accomplished, not the date at which the “Project” would begin. Dr. Cravens’s interpretation cannot be sustained in light of our well-established rules of contract construction. See Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393-94 (Tex.1983). The supreme court has cautioned us to look for “red flags” indicating that justifiable reliance is unwarranted. See Grant Thornton LLP, 314 S.W.3d at 923. There are red flags in this case, and they could not be larger and more weath by Eng’g, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 54, 75-76 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.), (<HOLDING>). Ac cordingly, insofar as any of the jury’s
holding that contractor could not show that it reasonably relied upon alleged misrepresentation holding that plan beneficiaries could not have reasonably relied on any alleged oral misrepresentations in light of a signed severance agreement containing information to the contrary holding that bankruptcy trustee for contractor could not avoid prepetition payment of funds from contractor to subcontractors holding that a person cannot reasonably rely on a misrepresentation when the contents of a written instrument contradict the alleged misrepresentation holding that the court could reasonably assume that no rational class member would have purchased the product had he known of the alleged misrepresentation