crediting favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not.” City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 807 (Tex.2005). A. Applicable Statute of Limitations As a threshold issue, the parties disagree over the length of the statute of limitations for Nelda’s breach of an implied warranty claim. In her last live pleading Nelda asserted a claim for breach of a common law implied warranty to repair her home in a good and workmanlike manner. She also asserted, under her DTPA cause of action, that Olshan breached an implied warranty that its foundation repairs would be done in a good and workmanlike manner. Olshan asserts the limitations period is two years for all of h 09, 412 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Darr Equip. Co. v. Allen, 824 S.W.2d 710, 712
holding statute of limitations for dtpa action including claim for breach of express or implied warranty under the dtpa is two years holding that a twoyear statute of limitations period applies to all  1983 actions brought in pennsylvania holding that because the dtpa is the only way of pursuing an implied warranty claim for repairs to existing tangible goods such a claim must necessarily be brought within the twoyear dtpa limitations period 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 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