With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". award of zero dollars in fees was its ruling regarding the “inextricably intertwined” exception and Air Routing’s refusal to segregate further. The trial court did not determine the amount of reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees that should be awarded under the Theft Act. Therefore, Britannia’s various arguments in support of the trial court’s alleged determination of this issue are not relevant to our disposition of this appeal. B. Did the trial court err in its determination regarding the “inextricably in-terwined” exception? Air Routing asserts the trial court erred in determining that its defense of Britannia’s Theft Act claim was not inextricably intertwined with its defense of Britannia’s claims for fraud, n S.W.2d 163, 169-71 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ) (<HOLDING>). However, we decline to apply this approach to

A: holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees
B: holding party should have segregated attorneys fees for fraud claim from attorneys fees for contract claim based largely on the difference between the essential elements of each claim
C: holding that no reason existed to create a uniform national rule in admiralty where the case concerned attorneys fees and whether the contractual provision which provided for attorneys fees should allow a party to recover attorneys fees where it succeeded on all but one minor issue
D: holding that oncors request for the trial judge rather than the jury to determine the reasonableness of its attorneys fees and the failure to submit the question of attorneys fees to the jury resulted in a waiver of oncors claim for the recovery of attorneys fees
B.