Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-25-00189-CV ________________ NICHOLAS IADEMARCO AND AMY IADEMARCO, Appellants V. THOMAS ANTHONY PRELI SR., INDIVIDUALLY, AND PRELI CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Appellees ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22-10-14449 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants, Nicholas and Amy Iademarco (collectively “the Iademarcos,” “Nicholas” and “Amy” individually) sued their neighbor, Thomas Preli, and his construction company Preli Constructors, Inc. (collectively “Preli”). The Iademarcos alleged that when Preli built his house on the land adjacent to theirs, he altered the land in such a way as to cause water to run onto the Iademarcos’ property and damage their home, deck, pool, and yard. 1 In six issues, the Iademarcos appeal the directed verdicts the trial court granted in Preli’s favor. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. BACKGROUND The Iademarcos sued Preli alleging claims for negligence, trespass, nuisance, and violations of the Texas Water Code. After the Iademarcos presented their case, the trial court held that the Iademarcos presented no evidence of causation or damages because their expert’s opinion constituted no evidence, since it was “nothing more than his ipse dixit.” We summarize the evidence below. Nicholas Iademarco’s Testimony Nicholas testified that he and Amy chose the house in the Bentwater development because of its proximity to the lake and golf, and that they purchased the house in July or August, 2020. Nicholas described the house as being in “pristine condition[,]” with “beautiful appliances[]” that appealed to their love of cooking. At the time the home inspection was performed, “[t]here were no concerns about the flooring in the kitchen[,]” and there were no cracked tiles in the kitchen area. Although there was a cracked tile on the rear patio, Nicholas was not concerned about it, because the damage appeared to have resulted from the stress of the framing installation. Nicholas likewise was not concerned about the deficient grading and drainage noted on the home inspection report because he had seen similar notations on other home inspection reports. 2 When the Iademarcos bought the property, the lot where Preli later built his house was unimproved land. Nicholas characterized Preli’s lot as “relatively flat[,]” with “a whole bunch of trees[.]” According to Nicholas, when Preli prepared to construct his house, in about October 2020, Preli “had [eighty] or so truckloads of dirt clay dumped onto the lot.” Nicholas recalled that he first noticed water coming from Preli’s lot onto the Iademarcos’ property in late November 2020. As Nicholas put it, there was “a fairly significant rain which almost immediately” caused the Iademarcos’ back yard to fill “with orange/red water.” Nicholas testified that Preli later installed a silt fence and placed a hay bale in the corner of his property to try to “push the water somewhere else.” When Preli “had somebody come in and do a little trenching[,]” the situation seemed to improve, although the Iademarcos’ property “remained saturated during the entire spring of 2021.” Nicholas testified that the runoff continued, but may have lessened, after Preli connected his downspouts to his underground drains. Later in 2021, the Iademarcos noticed problems with their flooring. First, the flooring looked dull and the grout crumbled. The Iademarcos then noticed the cracked tile. Although there were “[m]aybe five or ten[]” cracked tiles at first, the Iademarcos later counted fifty to sixty cracked tiles, noticed a crack in the ceiling, and “noticed that some of the tiles . . . in the rear patio were buckling.” As time went on, the Iademarcos also saw problems with the pool deck. When the Iademarcos 3 suspected that the problems at their home could be due to the water coming from Preli’s property, they contacted Rod McCasland, since he was the engineer who designed the house. McCasland evaluated the Iademarcos’ property in October 2021 and noted that Preli had built up his pad location three to four feet above the existing grade, causing water to flow from Preli’s land onto the Iademarcos’ land. According to McCasland’s notes, which Nicholas read aloud, this water from Preli’s land could have flowed under the Iademarcos’ slab, “causing heave, and thus, tile cracks.” McCasland recommended that the Iademarcos test their plumbing for leaks, and check the moisture content of the soil, which they did, and further recommended that the Iademarcos have a foundation level survey performed on their home, which they did not do. When asked about the home’s sprinkler system, Nicholas testified that the prior owner had set the system to water the property every other morning, and the Iademarcos used those same settings. Amy Iademarco’s Testimony Amy generally confirmed Nicholas’ testimony and estimated that “maybe two-thirds[]” of the marble flooring in her home had visible cracks. Amy also stated that the wood flooring was no longer shiny, and that about half of the “wood-look tile[]” on the back patio was cracked and had buckled. According to Amy, the 4 Iademarcos did not have spare tile or wood flooring to replace the damaged areas, and that all the flooring had been discontinued. Amy further testified that since Preli moved into his home, a third of the pool decking had “bubbled[,]” and was “disintegrating.” In addition, Amy noted that cabinets, flooring, and crown molding had “pulled away from the walls,” and would need repair. Thomas Preli’s Testimony Preli testified that he was a civil engineer and outlined his education, experience, and licensure in that field. Preli testified that he was the sole employee of his business, Preli Constructors, Inc., and that he used his business to build houses for himself and family members. Preli estimated that it took about fourteen to sixteen months to complete each of the homes he built. To build his home in the Bentwater development, Preli’s first step was clearing the land, including removing trees and topsoil. After having a soils report completed, Preli brought in dirt to raise the level of his building pad to accommodate the permitting requirements of Montgomery County and the Bentwater Property Owners’ Association (“POA”). After Preli heard complaints from the Iademarcos about the runoff from his property, in November and December 2020, he installed a silt fence and a straw wattle to reduce the water flow from his property. Preli testified that he later put a hay bale in a corner of his yard. To try to further address the Iademarcos’ concerns, Preli “had some rough grading done on the property,” and in 5 the summer of 2021, Preli had a swale cut at the back of his property. Preli eventually added holes under the brick wall to permit water to escape in that direction, before entering the Iademarcos’ property. In addition to making these efforts, Preli averred that the water “followed natural drainage. . . . It always flowed in that direction.” Preli also testified that the water flowed “in a common easement[.]” Preli acknowledged that he did not connect the downspouts in the rear of his property to underground drainage until Thanksgiving 2021 because he planned to install a pool. The Prelis decided against installing the pool because they “kept hearing complaints from the Iademarcos.” In Preli’s words, “why would we want to get a gunite truck back there to potentially spray over gunite. And the next thing we knew we’re being asked about window damage.” Preli explained the import of the October 2006 topographical map prepared by Bleyl & Associates, an engineering firm. According to Preli, the highlighted lines represented elevation above sea level and show that all of the Iademarcos’ property and a portion of Preli’s property were 230 feet high, while the rest of Preli’s property was 240 feet high. In short, Preli’s property was higher than the Iademarcos’ property in 2006, and in Preli’s opinion, he did everything in his power to prevent water from flowing from his property onto the Iademarcos’ property. 6 Michael Riese’s Testimony Michael Riese (“Riese”), the owner of MichaelAngela Construction, testified that his company specializes in home renovations, including flooring. The Iademarcos contacted Riese about flooring and renovation work on their home, and he first visited the property in January 2022. At that time, the Iademarcos told Riese “what was going on on the property behind them, and what had – may have happened in the home.” Riese toured the home, focusing mostly “on the flooring from the – somewhere in the back by the pool, you know, through the kitchen, and into the living area.” Riese prepared a repair estimate totaling $185,665, which is itemized by category in Riese’s report. Also in January 2022, Riese prepared an alternate estimate, totaling $104,915. The lower estimate did not include the hardwood flooring or the baseboard replacement. In 2025, Riese prepared an updated estimate reflecting increased labor and materials costs. Joseph Cibor’s Testimony Joseph Cibor (“Cibor”) described himself as a consulting geotechnical engineer and outlined his professional education and experience. The Iademarcos retained Cibor to analyze the cause of the damages to their home. To that end, Cibor assessed the inside and outside of the Iademarcos’ house, and looked at, but did not enter, Preli’s property. While inspecting the Iademarcos’ home, Cibor observed cracked and uneven tile, as well as “the warping or the cupping of the wooden 7 flooring[.]” After making these observations, Cibor recommended sampling the soil to determine its moisture content profile. This testing revealed water at the depth of six feet, in contrast to the 2014 soil samples, which revealed that the soil was “quite dry[,]” and did not strike groundwater despite drilling to a twenty-foot depth. These results told Cibor that since 2014, there had been “a significant increase in moisture content, particularly in the upper [six] feet of soil.” Cibor therefore concluded that “there [was] seepage, and the seepage has caused the soils to become saturated[.]” When water entered the Iademarcos’ property, it moved downward into the soil until “it hit the hard, impermeable red clay,” at which point “it had to start moving laterally toward the Iademarcos’ residence[]” and under the slab of their home. Since Cibor had viewed photographs and videos of water flowing from Preli’s property onto the Iademarcos’ property, Cibor believed that the soil swelled as it became wetter, causing the heaving and movement that caused the Iademarcos’ house damage. Preli’s Motion for Directed Verdict After the Iademarcos rested their case, Preli moved for a directed verdict as to all causes of action. Preli’s arguments included challenges to the causation element of the Iademarcos’ causes of action. After the parties made their arguments, the trial court granted Preli’s motion as to each cause of action, holding that Cibor’s testimony was his ipse dixit because 8 he performed no measurements and based his opinion on his skill and experience, only. Cibor’s testimony therefore constituted no evidence of the cause of the Iademarcos’ damage. The trial court also observed that there was no evidence of the “reasonable and necessary[]” cost of repairing the Iademarcos’ damage and that McCasland’s comment that he suspected swelling and heave due to water coming from Preli’s lot, was no evidence of causation. Documentary Evidence The record contains photographs of water flowing along the fence between the Iademarcos’ and the Prelis’ back yards, as well as water flowing along the brick wall separating both properties from the street. The photographs in the record also show the parties’ yards and the interior of the Iademarcos’ house, as well as aerial views of the properties. Two home inspection reports, dated August 3, 2019 and June 27, 2020, show the condition of the Iademarcos’ property on those dates. According to the 2019 inspection report, the home’s foundation showed “[n]o apparent signs of differential foundation movement[,]” but cautioned that proper drainage was “very important … due to the expansive nature of the load bearing soils.” The inspector stated, “[d]rainage appears to be away from foundation in all areas[,]” but recommended installing splashblocks to divert the runoff “at least 2 feet away from the foundation[,]” and included a photograph of the downspout. The inspector also 9 recommended adjusting the landscape irrigation system so that it worked properly and did not spray the walls of the house. The 2020 inspection report reflected that the “[s]lab ha[d] signs of settlement due to cracks in the stone/stucco and sheetrock.” More specifically, the inspector documented sheetrock cracks at the upstairs stairway, cracked tile at the exterior rear patio and exterior front of the garages, and cracks in the coping/pool decking. The inspector further “[o]bserved cracks in the stucco and stone mortar joints at various places of exterior[,] . . . impl[ying] that some structural movement of the building ha[d] occurred, as is typical of most houses.” The inspector noted the importance of proper drainage and suggested consulting a “landscape contractor to determine the best method for repair, estimate costs and perform the repairs.” The inspector stated that the “water spray from the sprinkler system should be re-directed away from the structure and/or any fencing, decks, etc., to decrease the possibility of damage.” McCasland evaluated the Iademarcos’ property in 2014, 2018, and 2021, and his reports are in evidence. In 2018, McCasland advised the property’s then owners that “the visible cracks in the ‘marble’ flooring application tile in the back left of the house, the breakfast area next to the back wall and hallway out to the backyard to the door[]” were caused by temperature changes. McCasland recommended that the cracked tiles be replaced and that the new tiles be “underlayed by a thin membrane 10 and the mortar bed be fiber reinforced.” McCasland also suggested adding an expansion joint in that area. When McCasland evaluated the property in 2021, he noted: 1. Surface cracks in tile, mostly in kitchen around center island, which does have a sink in it; 2. Small in-line crack in tiles of back porch next to pool deck; 3. Neighbor is building his own home (without use of professional builder) and has built pad up 3-4 feet causing all of the drainage off of the back of the new house roof and back yard to drain into the back yard of the Iademarco lot; 4. No cracking was observed in any of the walls, columns, slab edges (inside or out); 5. We suggested that it appears water is migrating under the house, causing heave and thus the tile cracks. Water from neighbor lot is travel[]ing underground (downhill) under house and creating moisture content change and swelling; 6. Should have leak detection on pool and kitchen sink to eliminate them as sources. McCasland recommended further investigation “and a comparison of the finished floor level status[.]” The 2022 repair estimates from MichaelAngela Construction covered removing the damaged flooring and restoring the affected areas. These estimates included not only the repair work, but preparation and cleaning. MichaelAngela estimated $9,655 for one screened porch area, and $8,485 for the other. The estimate for the front porch was $3,950. For the kitchen/dining area, MichaelAngela 11 estimated $36,450, and estimated $15,800 for the pantry and hallway. The laundry room and hall closet/half bath were estimated to cost $6,550 and $6,575, respectively, while the mud room was estimated to cost $5,600. MichaelAngela estimated that the fireplace repair would cost $6,600, assessed the wood flooring repair and baseboard replacement at $52,800 and $18,700, respectively, and also assessed ancillary costs, such as disconnecting and reconnecting appliances and moving furniture, for a total estimated cost of $185,665. MichaelAngela’s January 25, 2025 estimate reflects a total cost of $201,630. The Bentwater Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, also in evidence, dictate that property owners “will not in any way interfere with the established drainage pattern over his or her Lot from adjoining Lots or other Lots in the Subdivision[.]” The Building in Bentwater warning states that an owner may not “allow water from your lot to drain onto an adjoining lot or property without prior written permission of the adjoining property owner AND the Bentwater Architectural Control Committee.” A Lot Drainage Notice dated January 17, 2022, states, “[t]he established drainage patterns may not be altered without making adequate provisions to protect adjacent properties.” Emails between the POA and Nicholas and Preli are also in the record. These emails show that in November 2021, Nicholas contacted the POA about the drainage issue, at which time he was told that “Mr. Preli was going to have all gutters tied 12 into drains that feed water to the front yard.” When Nicholas sent an email to the POA on November 10, 2021, he included photographs showing that Preli’s rear gutters were “funneling water in [Nicholas’] direction.” On March 21, 2022, Nicholas again contacted the POA, concerned about Preli’s delay in completing the landscaping. In that email, Nicholas did not mention a drainage issue but instead stated that although Preli moved into his house “over a month ago[,]” Nicholas “continue[d] to look at a construction zone in my back yard with no end in sight.” The POA responded that Preli’s construction approval was valid until April 22, 2022, and that Preli had not completed his landscaping because he intended to install a pool in the rear of his home. ANALYSIS We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for directed verdict de novo, using the same standard of review as a legal sufficiency, or no-evidence challenge. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Orca Assets, G.P., L.L.C., 546 S.W.3d 648, 653 (Tex. 2018); City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 823 (Tex. 2005). The legal sufficiency test is the same in directed verdicts as in summary judgments and judgments notwithstanding the verdict: we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant’s case. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 823-24. Therefore, a directed verdict is proper if the record reflects: (1) a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact; (2) the court is barred by rules of law or evidence from 13 giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla; or (4) the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of the vital fact. Id. at 810. As the trial court observed, “[t]he final test for legal sufficiency must always be whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review.” Id. at 827. Because we affirm the trial court’s judgment due to the absence of causation and damage evidence as to the Iademarcos’ claims for a Texas Water Code violation, negligence, trespass, and nuisance, and because the Iademarcos focused on causation and damages in their brief, we note the following applicable standards for these claims: Texas Water Code (a) No person may divert or impound the natural flow of surface waters in this state, or permit a diversion or impounding by him to continue, in a manner that damages the property of another by the overflow of the water diverted or impounded. (b) A person whose property is injured by an overflow of water caused by an unlawful diversion or impounding has remedies at law and in equity and may recover damages occasioned by the overflow. Tex. Water Code Ann. § 11.086(a), (b). Negligence A cause of action for negligence in Texas requires three elements. There must be a legal duty owed by one person to another, a breach of 14 that duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach. Proximate cause requires both cause in fact and foreseeability. D. Houston, Inc. v. Love, 92 S.W.3d 450, 454 (Tex. 2002) (citations omitted). Trespass A trespass encompasses “(1) entry (2) onto the property of another (3) without the property owner’s consent or authorization.” Env’t Processing Sys., L.C. v. FPL Farming Ltd., 457 S.W.3d 414, 419 (Tex. 2015). Nuisance [T]he term “nuisance” refers not to a defendant’s conduct or to a legal claim or cause of action but to a type of legal injury involving interference with the use and enjoyment of real property. . . . [A] defendant can be liable for causing a nuisance if the defendant intentionally causes it, negligently causes it, or–in limited circumstances–causes it by engaging in abnormally dangerous or ultra- hazardous activities. Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580, 588 (Tex. 2016). Damages A party seeking to recover remedial damages must prove that the amount of the damages sought are reasonable and necessary. McGinty v. Hennen, 372 S.W.3d 625, 627 (Tex. 2012) (citation omitted). Causation Regardless of the Iademarcos’ theory of recovery, they needed to show that Preli’s alleged acts or omissions were a cause of their flooring damage. See Palma v. Chribran Co., L.L.C., 327 S.W.3d 866, 869 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010, no pet.). 15 Since the issues of damages and causation determine the outcome of this appeal, we address those issues first. To illustrate this principle, we observe that even had the evidence shown that Preli was negligent, or that he diverted or impounded surface water, such negligence or diversion would not entitle the Iademarcos to an award of damages without sufficient evidence to show that the diversion or impoundment caused the Iademarcos’ damage. See Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. Ellisor, 718 S.W.3d 193, 200 (Tex. 2025). Tenaris Bay is instructive in the instant case since it addresses not only the but-for causation requirement but the need for expert testimony to show the cause of flooding. See id. at 199-201. In Tenaris Bay, the Texas Supreme Court addressed a suit by property owners who alleged that flawed design and construction of a pipeline manufacturing company caused their homes to flood during a hurricane. Id. at 196. Reversing the lower courts’ judgments in favor of the property owners on theories of recovery based on negligence, nuisance, and the Water Code, the Tenaris Bay court stated: To recover on their claims, the plaintiffs needed to prove that their houses would not have flooded during Hurricane Harvey if not for the presence of the defendant’s defectively designed facility. Challenged to draw that key conclusion, the plaintiffs’ expert witness declined to do so. Instead, he acknowledged that he could have done the scientific analysis necessary to know the cause of the flooding of these particular houses, but he had not done it. Id. 16 Discounting the reliability of the plaintiffs’ expert witness, who relied on his education and expertise in blaming the house flooding on the facility’s alleged defects, the Tenaris Bay court stated, “expert testimony on causation is fundamentally unreliable if the expert fails to exclude other plausible causes with reasonable certainty.” Id. at 199 (citations omitted). Here, as in Tenaris Bay, the Iademarcos claimed damage due to Preli’s negligence, nuisance, and water code violations, yet their expert witness based his opinion on causation on his expertise, rather than on hydrological studies or on the foundation level survey that McCasland recommended. See id. at 202. In another similarity to Tenaris Bay, the Iademarcos’ expert witness did not differentiate between the water coming from Preli’s property, the rainwater falling on the Iademarcos’ property, or the water originating in the Iademarcos’ own irrigation system. Under the rationale of Tenaris Bay, the Iademarcos’ expert witness was required to make these calculations and to show that but for the water coming onto the Iademarcos’ property from Preli’s property, the Iademarcos’ foundation would not have moved in a manner that would have made their tile crack. See id. at 202- 03. The Iademarcos cannot meet that burden, because undisputed evidence shows that the previous owner of the Iademarcos’ home experienced cracked tiles before Preli purchased the adjacent lot. Since the prior owner’s tiles cracked before Preli “built up” his lot, the cracked tiles could not have resulted from Preli’s “built up” 17 lot. Instead, as McCasland stated in his 2018 report, the cracked tiles could have been caused by temperature changes, which Cibor did not exclude as a plausible cause. Moreover, the 2006 topographical map shows that before either the Iademarcos’ or Preli’s house was built, the lot Preli purchased was higher than the Iademarcos’ property. It therefore would be expected that water would flow from the higher property to the lower property regardless of Preli’s construction decisions. As both Preli and the trial court stated, “water flows downhill.” The Iademarcos’ argument that the water coming onto their property from Preli’s property increased after Preli began building relies on the respective depths at which ground water was found in 2014 and 2024. This higher groundwater level, however, does not necessarily implicate Preli. Instead, this change could be due to “the influence of seasonal variations as well as other factors[,]” as reflected in the Report of Soil Foundation Investigation. When an issue involves matters beyond jurors’ common understanding, it must be proven through the use of expert testimony. See Gharda USA, Inc. v. Control Solutions, Inc., 464 S.W.3d 338, 348 (Tex. 2015). In Palma, we held that “the common experience of laypersons[,]” would not encompass matters such as “how water travels after being absorbed by the ground” and expert evidence was therefore required to establish how water travels beneath the earth’s surface and affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment since the plaintiffs presented no such evidence. 327 18 S.W.3d at 871-72. Therefore, the Iademarcos could not prevail without competent expert evidence showing a cause-and-effect relationship between their flooring damage and Preli’s property. See id. at 870-72. Although the Iademarcos, unlike Palma, presented expert evidence of the cause of their damage, the trial court relied on E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson to hold that Cibor’s testimony was the ipse dixit of a credentialed witness, and thus no evidence. 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995) (“[A] person with a degree should not be allowed to testify that the world is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the Earth is the center of the solar system.”). We agree. Since Cibor’s testimony was based on his experience and observation rather than on scientific tests quantifying any slab movement, Cibor’s opinion as to causation was not shown to have been scientifically reliable. See Tenaris Bay, 718 S.W.3d at 199 (holding that an expert opinion based on education and experience alone, without scientific testing, is insufficient). Since Cibor’s testimony was not competent evidence of the causation of the Iademarcos’ damages, we overrule the Iademarcos’ second, third, and sixth appellate issues, which address causation. Damages Even if the Iademarcos had succeeded in proving that runoff from Preli’s property caused the damages to their home, the Iademarcos would not be entitled to damages since they offered no evidence that the repair estimates in evidence 19 represented reasonable and necessary charges. See McGinty, 372 S.W.3d at 627. As the McGinty court stated, “[e]stimated out-of-pocket expenses . . . do not establish that the cost of repair was reasonable. Some other evidence is necessary.” Id. at 627- 28. This “other evidence” requirement may be satisfied through witness testimony to the reasonableness and necessity of the charges. In some instances, however, the evidence of reasonableness and necessity need not be so specific. See Tubal Cain Indus., Inc. v. J.W. Garrett & Son, Inc., No. 09-23-00368-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 9307, at **20-24 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 4, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.). In Tubal Cain, we referenced the testimony of the appellant’s vice president, who testified to his knowledge of market prices and conditions to affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id. at *20. In other instances, our sister courts have found sufficient other evidence of reasonableness in evidence of the amount the appellant would have charged or in evidence explaining how the contractor was selected. See Hernandez v. Lautensack, 201 S.W.3d 771, 777 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied); Shafaii Invs., Ltd. v. Bonilla, No. 01-21-00731-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6948, at **17-21 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 29, 2025, pet. denied). In Hernandez, as in Tubal Cain, there was evidence of the amounts charged by the party opposing the damage award, thus enabling the jury to use this information as some evidence of reasonableness. See Hernandez, 201 S.W.3d at 777. In Shafaii Investments, there was evidence of the two plaintiffs’ processes for obtaining bids and selecting a 20 contractor to repair the flood damage to their homes. 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6948, at **4-13. In the instant case, we have no such evidence but instead have only MichaelAngela’s three different repair estimates, two dated January 22, 2022, and one dated January 25, 2025. Although these estimates are separated by area of the house, Riese did not explain how he calculated material and labor costs to arrive at his estimated total costs. While Riese references charging five dollars per square foot for tile, the evidence does not reveal whether this charge covered material, installation, or both. Since we have no “other evidence” concerning industry standards and pricing by which to evaluate the reasonableness or necessity of the repair estimates in the record, we conclude that the Iademarcos failed to show that any of these estimates represented the reasonable and necessary cost to repair the house. We overrule the Iademarcos’ fifth appellate issue. Since our disposition of the causation and damages issues requires us to affirm the trial court’s judgment, we need not address the Iademarcos’ remaining appellate issues. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. 21 CONCLUSION Having overruled the Iademarcos’ dispositive appellate issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. JAY WRIGHT Justice Submitted on May 28, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 27, 2026 Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ. 22