for breach of an express warranty, breach of an implied warranty, DTPA violations, and fraud. As to Nelda’s fraudulent concealment defense, the jury determined Olshan committed fraud and Olshan knowingly engaged in conduct to deliberately prevent Nelda from filing suit. In its second issue on appeal, Olshan asserts Nelda’s DTPA claims, including breach of any implied warranty, are barred by the two-year statute of limitations, and her common law fraud claim is barred by the four-year statute of limitations. Olshan argues the evidence supporting the jury’s findings regarding the accrual date is legally and factually insufficient. Because we consider only Olshan’s no-evidence challenge, we “must view the evidence in the light favorable to the ver Tex.App.-Amarillo 1992, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we apply the two-year statute of
holding that an implied warranty to perform services in a good and workmanlike manner is an action available under the dtpa and is subject to the twoyear limitations provided by the dtpa holding that passenger cannot maintain action for breach of implied warranty to provide safe passage holding statute of limitations for dtpa action including claim for breach of express or implied warranty under the dtpa is two years holding the implied warranty is implied in all residential leases in california holding plaintiff had to commence his breach of implied warranty action under the dtpa within two years because tjhis special statute of limitations denies plaintiffs alternative proposal of entitlement to recover for breach of the common law implied warranty