With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". evidence demonstrating that attempts were actually made to separate the fees by claim at the time the fees were incurred and that further separation of the time was impracticable. The trial court’s findings of fact 9-11 and conclusions of law 3-7 show that the trial court based its segregation ruling on both of these legal standards. We conclude that the two legal standards advocated by Britannia are not proper under current Texas law and that Air Routing’s position regarding the legal standard is correct. Britannia correctly asserts that several courts of appeals, in applying the Sterling standard, have compared the essential elements of the claims in question. See Geodyne Energy Income Production P’ship I-E v. Newton Corp., 97 S.W.3d 779, 789-90 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, pet. granted) (<HOLDING>); Z.A.O., Inc,, v. Yarbrough Drive Cent. Joint

A: holding that contract and tort claims were capable of segregation in part because these claims required proof of different elements
B: holding segregation was required in part because the claims have significantly different elements than the claim for which attorneys fees are recoverable
C: holding segregation was necessary because breachofcontract claim required proof of different elements than other claims
D: holding attorneys fees not generally recoverable unless party prevails under cause of action for which attorneys fees are recoverable and damages are recovered
B.