Full Opinion

Opinion issued October 6, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00208-CV ——————————— TEXAS RV & CAR CARE, Appellant V. JAMES OEHLKE, Appellee On Appeal from the 164th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2018-20048 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellee James Oehlke sued Appellant Texas RV & Car Care for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act after Oehlke’s recreational vehicle sustained extensive water damage while being repaired by Texas RV. After a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Oehkle on his DTPA claim and awarded him actual damages, additional damages based on the jury’s finding that Texas RV knowingly violated the DTPA, and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. On appeal, Texas RV argues that the trial court erred by (1) by rendering judgment in Oehkle’s favor on his DTPA claim because there is no evidence it engaged in a false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice in violation of the DTPA or that such deceptive conduct was a producing cause of Oehkle’s damages, (2) awarding additional damages under the DTPA because there is no evidence Texas RV knowingly violated the DTPA, (3) awarding attorney’s fees because Oehlke did not present expert testimony establishing that the fees are reasonable and necessary, and (4) not allowing the attorney for Oehkle’s insurance provider—a former co-defendant—to testify that the insurer denied Oehkle’s insurance claim because the adjuster determined that the damage to the vehicle was the result of wear and tear on the roof. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. Background James and Susan Oehkle took their 2005 Mountain Aire RV to Texas RV for repairs on July 15, 2017. While it was at Texas RV, the RV sustained extensive water damage during Hurricane Harvey. The Oehlkes sued Texas RV for negligence, 2 negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act for the damage to the RV.1 Trial Testimony The Oehlkes purchased the RV in 2006. The RV has two air conditioning units on the roof and a third unit in the front dash. In 2007, the dealer who sold the Oehlkes the RV replaced the RV’s rear air conditioning unit after the original unit stopped working. Ten years later, on July 15, 2017, the Oehlkes took the RV to Texas RV for servicing. When Oehkle and his wife Susan went to Texas RV on July 25 to check on the status of the work, Susan asked Texas RV to also check the rear air conditioning unit because it was not cooling enough. Oehkle testified that, among other repairs, Texas RV replaced the rear air conditioning unit, and he agreed to replace the unit because Texas RV told him it was needed. The RV was in Texas RV’s possession when Hurricane Harvey made landfall in the Houston area on August 25. Oehkle and Susan picked up the RV from Texas RV on September 2. Texas RV’s office manager, Rebecca, was the only person present when they arrived. Oehkle testified that when Rebecca showed them the RV, the RV’s interior was extremely cold and they could not see inside the back bedroom because Rebecca 1 The Oehlkes also sued National General Insurance Company for failing to cover their claim. The court granted summary judgment in favor of National General in September 2020. 3 stood in the doorway and blocked their access. According to Oehkle, they spent maybe five minutes inside the RV. Oehkle testified that he and Susan arrived at Texas RV close to closing time and he felt like Rebecca was rushing them to leave. When asked if Rebecca told him that the “job was completed” when he picked up the RV, Oehkle testified that “she charged me, yeah. She said come and get it again.” Although Oehkle did not notice anything wrong with the RV when he picked it up, he discovered the following morning that the RV’s interior had sustained extensive water damage. The inside of the RV smelled like mold and mildew, the carpeting was wet, and there was water on the walls. According to Oehkle, the back bedroom had sustained the worst damage and the bed, which was directly under the rear air conditioning unit, was completely saturated. When the Oehkles inspected the RV’s roof, they found three small, exposed holes under the new air conditioning unit that had not been there when they took the RV to Texas RV for repairs. Oehkle testified that the holes in the roof were made when Texas RV removed the rear air conditioning unit and installed the new unit. According to Oehkle, the old unit had been mounted on the roof using those holes and because “the old unit and the new unit that they put on did not match the bolt holes,” Texas RV “screwed [the new unit] down in different locations and left the other holes exposed, the old install.” Oehkle testified that they covered the holes with tape to protect the RV from further damage. 4 Oehkle told Texas RV’s owner Jeff Maynard that the RV had sustained water damage. According to Oehkle, Maynard refused to repair the RV and told Oehkle that Texas RV was not liable for the damage because the “entire roof ha[d] deteriorated due to lack of maintenance” and the water damage was due to the lack of maintenance, not Texas RV’s installation of the new air-conditioning unit. Oehkle testified that he did not take the RV back to Texas RV. Oehkle testified that while the RV was being repaired, he went to Texas RV on July 25 and on August 16, 18, and 24 to check on the status of the repairs. The work orders and invoices generated on those dates were admitted into evidence. Each work order and invoice contains an express warranty stating that the “[w]arranty is for parts and labor, 1 Year or 12,000 miles, which ever occurs first.” The July 25 work order has a notation stating, “Also Roof Needs Reseal.” Oehkle, who was questioned multiple times about the notation, testified that no one from Texas RV had shown him the work order or talked to him about the notation. Oehkle testified, however, that someone at Texas RV verbally told him that the roof needed to be resealed and that he chose not to have it resealed. Oehkle was also questioned about an inspection checklist where Texas RV noted that the roof’s sealant was not good, and it “needs reseal.” When shown the checklist and asked if “it’s your testimony still that they never said anything about the roof needing to be resealed,” Oehkle testified, “They never talked to me about it.” Oehkle testified that 5 there are two layers of sealant—a primary seal, which goes down first, and a secondary seal, which is “[c]osmetic and it probably would help if the primary was to leak for some reason.” He then testified: Q. If Texas RV told you that it would flood, not just that you needed to replace the caulking but the second seal, would you have done so? A. Sure. Q. Did they tell you that not replacing the secondary sealing would result in water damage? A. No. With respect to the installation of the new air conditioning unit, both the August 16 work order and invoice and the August 18 work order state, “R&R rear upper a/c unit. No lower ceiling assembly. Unit screws to roof. Takes longer to remove and install.”2 When questioned about the August 18 work order, Oehkle testified that no one explained the notation to him. Susan testified that she asked Texas RV to check the rear air-conditioning unit because it was not cooling enough. According to Susan, she was present for every conversation with Texas RV regarding the air conditioning unit. She testified that Rebecca was the only person working when they went to Texas RV on September 2 to pick up the RV. When Rebecca showed them the RV, it was very cold inside and 2 Similarly, the August 24 and September 2 invoices state, “R&R Rear Upper A/C Unit. No Lower Ceiling Assembly. Unit Screws To Roof. Takes longer to Remove and install. Per Customer, 13.5K BTU Unit is Being Replaced With a 15K A/C Unit.” 6 Rebecca asked her to feel the air conditioning vent to see how well the new unit was working. Susan was unable to inspect the back bedroom because Rebecca was standing in the doorway. Susan testified that it was near closing time when they picked up the RV, and Rebecca told the Oehkles that she was waiting on them so that she could leave. Susan testified that the following morning she noticed that the RV’s interior had sustained extensive water damage. Most of the water damage was in the back bedroom, which was underneath the new air conditioning unit. She saw water dripping down from the speaker in the ceiling over the bed and water was “actually coming out of the carpet and the water was crawling up the wall.” When she went up on the roof, Susan noticed exposed holes below the new air-conditioning unit and the holes were large enough for her to insert her finger and wiggle it around. Susan testified that there were no holes in the RV’s roof when they left it with Texas RV. According to Susan, they informed Texas RV of the water damage, but they never took the RV back to Texas RV, and Texas RV never offered to repair the damage. Sean Parsons, a damage appraiser, testified that Oehlke hired him to estimate the damage to the RV. Parsons inspected the RV and prepared an inspection report which was admitted into evidence. Parsons’ report states: Per owner, the unit was at a repair shop during Hurricane Harvey for AC repairs, and work was not completed prior to start of storm. The 7 unit received water entry via holes and breather panel on roof. The new AC doesn’t align with mount holes and prior holes caused entry points. This unit received water intrusion that caused water damage over a large area. Based on his inspection, Parsons concluded that the water had entered the RV through the holes in the roof near the rear air conditioning unit and it would cost $95,767.30 to repair the damage to the RV. Jeffrey Maynard, Texas RV’s owner, testified that Susan asked them to check the rear air-conditioning unit—a 13.5K BTU with a heat pump—because it was not cooling sufficiently and Texas RV recommended replacing the air-conditioning unit with a 15K BTU unit that had a greater cooling capacity and did not have a heat pump. According to Maynard, the 15K BTU unit was the same size and brand as the old 13.5K unit and thus both air conditioning units would have been bolted to the roof in the same place. According to Maynard, he explained the differences between the two units to Oehkle, and Oehkle agreed to replace the 13.5K BTU with the 15K BTU unit. Maynard testified that his technicians installed the rear air-conditioning unit properly “[b]ecause my guys do a good job.” When asked about the July 25 work order containing a notation that the roof needed to be resealed, Maynard testified that Oehlke was not provided with a copy of the work order “but we also had discussions and some of them very heated” during which he could have told Oehkle that “he needs a complete reseal [of the roof]—a scrape and reseal because the cracks are bad enough it’s going to leak.” Maynard 8 testified that he told Oehlke that the roof needed to be resealed because the primary sealant—known as Dicor—was cracked. According to Maynard, he told Oehlke multiple times that the RV’s roof needed to be resealed, and Oehkle always responded that his “roof is fine,” there is “nothing wrong with it,” and the roof did not “need to be resealed.” When asked if Oehkle had asked him to take any precautions with regard to the RV prior to Hurricane Harvey, Maynard testified that he was concerned that the RV’s roof could leak because of the cracked sealant and when he expressed his concern to Oehkle, he responded that “[h]is roof was fine.” Maynard testified that the roof needed to be resealed because it had not been properly maintained and he believed that the water entered the coach through cracks in the sealant. Maynard, who acknowledged that his technicians did not seal the holes in the roof, testified that he did not know how or when the holes in the roof were made, but he had no reason to believe that his technicians were responsible for creating the holes when they replaced the rear AC unit. He testified that if his technicians had drilled holes in the roof to install the new unit, they would have sealed the holes left when they removed the old unit, but they would not have sealed any pre-existing holes in the roof unless Oehkle had hired them to reseal the roof. Maynard testified that if Oehkle had followed Texas RV’s recommendation to reseal the entire the roof, Texas RV would have removed the old sealant and “resealed everything properly,” which would have included any holes in the roof. 9 Jury Charge and Findings The jury charge contained three questions applicable to Oehkle’s DTPA claim—Questions 6, 7, and 8. Question 6 asked the jury to determine: What sum of money, if any, in addition to actual damages, should be awarded to Plaintiff, James Oehlke against Defendant, Texas RV & Car Care because Defendant’s conduct was committed knowingly. If a defendant acts knowingly, you may multiply the Plaintiff’s economic damages (cost to repair and loss of use) by up to three times. Answer in dollars and cents, if any. The jury answered, $110,000. Question 7 asked the jury to determine whether Texas RV had engaged in “any false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice that [Oehkle] relied on to his detriment and that was a producing cause of damages to [Oehkle]” by “representing that goods [or services] are or will be of a particular quality if they were of another,” “representing that an agreement confers or involves rights that it did not have or involve,” or “failing to disclose information about goods [or services] that was known at the time of the transaction with the intention to induce [Oehkle]into a transaction he otherwise would not have entered into if the information had been disclosed.” The jury answered, “Yes.” Question 8 asked the jury to determine what “sum of money, if any, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate [Oehlke] for his damages, if 10 any, that resulted from” Texas RV’s false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice. The jury answered, $68,150. The jury also found in favor of Oehlke on his common-law negligence claim and awarded him $90,978.65 in actual damages (Questions 1 and 3) and his negligent misrepresentation claim and awarded him $150,000 in actual damages (Questions 4 and 5). Although the jury found in favor of Oehlke on his common-law fraud claim (Question 9), the jury was not asked to make a finding regarding the amount of damages Oehkle sustained as a result of Texas RV’s fraudulent conduct. Last, in response to Question 10, the jury found that a reasonable fee for Oehkle’s attorney was $50,000. Final Judgment The final judgment states that the jury found in Oehkle’s favor on his common-law negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and DTPA claims and The jury having awarded damages for the same injury under multiple theories, [Oehkle] exercised his right under the “one satisfaction” doctrine to elect recovery for violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. [Oehkle] does not waive his right to elect recovery under a different theory in the event this judgment is reversed or vacated. Because Oehkle elected to recover on his DTPA claim, the trial court rendered judgment in Oehkle’s favor on the DTPA claim and awarded him $68,150 in actual damages, $110,000 in additional damages based on the jury’s finding that Texas RV 11 had acted knowingly, and $50,000 in reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. This appeal followed. Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act In its first issue, Texas RV argues that the trial court erred by rendering judgment in Oehkle’s favor on his DTPA claim because there is no evidence Texas RV engaged in a false, misleading, or deceptive act by (1) misrepresenting that services would be of a particularly quality when they were of another, (2) misrepresenting that the invoices conferred or involved rights to Oehkle that they did not have or involve, or (3) failing to disclose information known at the time about its services to Oehkle with the intention of inducing Oehkle into the transaction which he otherwise would not have entered into had the information been disclosed. Texas RV further argues there is no evidence that any false, misleading, or deceptive act by Texas RV was a producing cause of Oehlke’s damages because Parsons provided the only evidence that the holes in the RV’s roof caused the water damage and he was not qualified to offer expert testimony on causation. A. Preservation of Error Oehkle first argues that Texas RV did not preserve its challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding that Texas RV engaged in a false, misleading, or deceptive act under Question 7 because although it objected to the submission of Question 7 and its instructions during the charge conference, 12 Texas RV’s objections were lacking in specificity and it did not obtain a ruling on its objections. A no-evidence, or legal sufficiency, complaint may be preserved by (1) a motion for instructed verdict, (2) a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, (3) an objection to the submission of the issue to the jury, (4) a motion to disregard the jury’s answer to a vital fact issue or (5) a motion for new trial. Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509, 510–11 (Tex. 1991). An issue is not preserved on appeal, however, unless the record shows that it was presented to the trial court “by a timely request, objection, or motion” that “stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context,” and “the trial court . . . ruled on the request, objection, or motion,” or “refused to rule[,] . . . and the complaining party objected to th[at] refusal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). During the charge conference, Texas RV objected to the submission of Question 7, and to each instruction specifically, on the basis that there was no evidence that it had engaged in any of the deceptive acts set forth in the instructions. After hearing Texas RV’s objections and the argument of counsel, the trial court overruled Texas RV’s objections to three of the proposed instructions by stating that “the failing to disclose will definitely be part of the jury charge. The quality will also 13 be part of the jury charge . . . I’m going to allow in the agreement. Those three will go back to the jury. . .” Texas RV thus preserved its challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings under Question 7 by raising specific objections to the submission of Question 7 and each of its instructions and obtaining a ruling on its objections. See id.; Cecil, 804 S.W.2d at 510–11 (stating party can preserve no evidence complaint by objecting to submission of issue to jury). B. Standard of Review In reviewing the legal sufficiency of evidence supporting a jury finding, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, crediting favorable evidence if a reasonable factfinder could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). We consider the evidence in context rather than in isolation. AutoZone, Inc. v. Reyes, 272 S.W.3d 588, 592 (Tex. 2008) (“Even though the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, it cannot be considered in isolated bits and pieces divorced from its surroundings; it must be viewed in its proper context with other evidence.”) (citing City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 827). A party who challenges the legal sufficiency of a finding on which it did not have the burden of proof must demonstrate that there is no evidence to support the adverse finding. See Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., L.C., 348 S.W.3d 194, 14 215 (Tex. 2011). We may not sustain a legal sufficiency or no-evidence point unless the record demonstrates that (1) there is a complete absence of a vital fact; (2) the court is barred by the rules of law or of evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) the evidence to prove a vital fact is no more than a scintilla; or (4) the evidence established conclusively the opposite of the vital fact. City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 810. “Evidence is conclusive only if reasonable people could not differ in their conclusions . . . .” Id. at 816. As the factfinder, the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give their testimony. See id. at 819. C. Applicable Law The DTPA prohibits “[f]alse, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Everett v. TK-Taito, L.L.C., 178 S.W.3d 844, 857 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). “To recover under the DTPA, the plaintiff must show that (1) he is a consumer, (2) the defendant engaged in a false, misleading, or deceptive act, and (3) the act constituted a producing cause of economic damages or damages for mental anguish.” Id. (citing TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.50(a)(1); Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex. 1995)). “Producing cause” means “a substantial factor which brings about the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred.” Doe, 907 S.W.2d 15 at 481. This requires evidence that the consumer was adversely affected by the defendant’s deceptive conduct. See id. A false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice includes (7) representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another… (12) representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law [and] (24) failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed… TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(7), (12), (24). D. Analysis Question 7 asked the jury to determine whether Texas RV had engaged in “any false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice that [Oehkle] relied on to his detriment and that was a producing cause of damages to [Oehkle]” by (1) “representing that goods [or services] are or will be of a particular quality if they were of another,” see id. § 17.46(b)(7); (2) “representing that an agreement confers or involves rights that it did not have or involve,” see id. § 17.46(b)(12); or (3) “failing to disclose information about goods [or services] that was known at the time of the transaction with the intention to induce [Oehkle] into a transaction he 16 otherwise would not have entered into if the information had been disclosed,” see id. § 17.46(b)(24). According to Texas RV, it is unclear what Oehkle’s theory is regarding the alleged wrong committed by Texas RV under the DTPA. To the extent his complaint is that the roof was not sealed after Texas RV replaced the air conditioning unit, Texas RV argues that “the record is replete with evidence that [Texas RV] specifically recommended to [Oehkle] that the roof needed to be resealed, and [Oehkle] chose not to have the roof resealed.” According to Texas RV, “not only is the record devoid of any testimony as to what [Texas RV’s] act [was] that could be considered a misrepresentation but, to the contrary, the record proves conclusively that [Oehkle] was told that the roof of the RV needed to be resealed, and he simply refused.” Oehkle argues that he articulated the factual theory for his DTPA claim in his response to Texas RV’s Motion to Vacate Judgment, Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict, and Motion for New Trial (the “Response”). Quoting his Response, Oehkle argues that Texas RV misrepresented the quality of its goods or services because [Texas RV] misrepresented to [Oehlke] that [Texas RV] would replace [Oehlke’s] air-conditioning unit with the same-sized unit. [Texas RV] misrepresented to [Oehlke] that [Texas RV] had properly installed the new air-conditioning unit. [Texas RV] misrepresented to [Oehlke] that the new air-conditioning unit would attach to the RV’s roof as it did before. [Texas RV] misrepresented to [Oehlke] that new holes were 17 required in the RV’s roof. [Texas RV] misrepresented to [Oehlke] that [Oehlke’s] RV did not sustain water damage. [Texas RV] misrepresented to [Oehlke] the need to replace the RV’s caulking. 1. Failure to disclose need to reseal the roof Oehkle argues that Texas RV did not conclusively prove that it recommended to Oehkle that the roof be resealed and Oehkle rejected the recommendation because Oehkle testified that Texas RV did not tell him that the roof be resealed. In his Response, which he quotes in his brief, Oehkle also argued that Texas RV “failed to inform him that there were exposed holes on the RV’s roof” and it misrepresented to him “the need to replace the RV’s caulking.” Liberally construing Oehkle’s brief, we understand him to argue that Texas RV engaged in a false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice in violation of the DTPA because Texas RV knew there were exposed holes in the RV’s roof and that the roof needed to be resealed to avoid water intrusion into the RV’s interior, and Texas RV failed to disclose either piece of information to Oehlke. Because this alleged false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice is premised on Texas RV’s purported failure to disclose information to Oehkle, as opposed to an affirmative representation, it is actionable under Section 14.76(b)(24) rather than Subsection (b)(7). See Steptoe v. True, 38 S.W.3d 213, 217 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (“A DTPA misrepresentation usually requires an affirmative representation, although sometimes the failure to disclose may be 18 actionable.”); see also TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(7), (24). The mere nondisclosure of material information is not enough to establish an actionable DTPA claim under Section 17.46(b)(24). Jasek v. Tex. Farm Bureau Underwriters, No. 14- 19-00759-CV, 2022 WL 364050, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 8, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(24)). There must also be evidence that defendant withheld the information with the intention of inducing the consumer “into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed.” TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(24) (stating false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice includes “failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed…”). Even assuming Texas RV failed to recommend to Oehlke that the roof needed to be resealed, and it knew there were holes in the roof and that the roof would leak if it was not resealed,3 the parties have not directed us to any evidence that Texas RV failed to make these alleged disclosures to Oehkle with the intention of inducing 3 Texas RV argues that there is no evidence that there were holes in the roof when it replaced the air conditioner or that it created the holes when it installed the new air conditioner. It does not dispute that it knew the roof would leak if it was not resealed because the primary sealant was cracked. 19 Oehkle into a transaction he would not have entered had Texas RV disclosed this information to him.4 2. Other false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices Oehkle argues that the record contains sufficient evidence demonstrating that Texas RV misrepresented the quality of its services and that the invoices signed by Oehkle and Texas RV conferred or involved warranty and indemnification rights that they did not have or involve. According to Oehkle, Texas RV misrepresented to him that it would replace the rear air-conditioning unit with a “same-sized unit” that “would be properly installed,” “would attach to the RV’s roof as it did before,” and that “new holes were required in the RV’s roof.” According to Oehkle, Texas RV also misrepresented that it “had properly installed the new air-conditioning unit,” “when [Texas RV] completed the repairs to the RV, that there were no deficiencies in the installation,” and the RV “did not sustain water damage.” 4 We note that Oehlke testified that Texas RV never told him that the RV would suffer water damage if the roof was not resealed and that had Texas RV disclosed this information to him, he would have paid Texas RV to reseal the roof. This testimony demonstrates that the disclosure of this information would have had the opposite result—it would have induced Oehkle to pay Texas RV to reseal the roof, which is a transaction Oehlke did not enter into. See TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(24) (stating false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice includes “failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed…”). 20 We have not found, nor have the parties directed us to, any evidence that Texas RV misrepresented to Oehlke that the new air-conditioning unit would be the same size unit as the old unit, that the new unit would “attach to the RV’s roof as it did before,” or that “new holes were required in the RV’s roof.” Neither Oehkle nor Susan testified that Texas RV made any representations to them about the size of the new air-conditioning unit, how it would attach to the roof, or whether Texas RV would need to drill holes in the roof to install the new unit. At most, Susan testified that unlike the old unit, the new unit did not have a heat pump, and she did not ask Texas RV to install an air conditioner without a heat pump. She also testified that the only conversation she and Oehkle had with Texas RV regarding the rear air conditioning unit was on July 25, when she asked Texas RV to check the old unit because it was not cooling sufficiently. Oehkle testified that Texas RV recommended replacing the rear air conditioning unit, and he agreed to replace the air conditioner because Texas RV told him that he needed a new unit. Similarly, we have not found, nor have the parties directed us to, any evidence that Texas RV misrepresented to Oehlke that it had properly installed the new “correct-sized” air-conditioning unit, and “when [Texas RV] completed the repairs to the RV, that there were no deficiencies in the installation.” At most, the record reflects that when he was asked if Rebecca told him that the “job was completed” when he picked up the RV, Oehkle testified, “She charged me, yeah. She said come 21 and get it again.” More to the point, even if there were evidence that Texas RV made these misrepresentations to Oehkle, any such misrepresentation could not have been a producing cause of Oehkle’s injury—the water damage sustained by the RV during Hurricane Harvey—because the alleged representations would have been made after the injury occurred and thus could not have been a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. See Doe, 907 S.W.2d at 481 (stating “producing cause” means “a substantial factor which brings about the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred”). Even assuming that the Oehkles’ testimony that when they picked up the RV, Rebecca tried to mask any odors by making the RV extremely cold, blocking their access to the bedroom located directly under the air conditioner, and rushing their inspection of the RV, is some evidence that Texas RV misrepresented or failed to disclose that the “RV did not sustain water damage,” this misrepresentation or failure to disclose could not have been a producing cause of the water damage sustained by the RV because the misrepresentation was made after the injury occurred. See id. (stating misrepresentation must be substantial factor in bringing about injury and without which injury would not have occurred). The evidence Oehkle expressly relies on—testimony and exhibits it argues “describ[es] the size of the holes,” “invoices evidencing the installation of the wrong sized air-conditioning unit,” and invoices and testimony purportedly showing that 22 Texas RV installed a “different air-conditioning unit”—does not demonstrate that Texas RV represented to Oehkle that goods or services were of a particular quality when they were of another. As noted, there is no evidence that Texas RV made any representations about the size of the new air-conditioning unit, how it would attach to the roof, or whether Texas RV would need to drill holes in the roof to install the new unit. Thus, evidence that Texas RV installed a “wrong sized” or “different air- conditioning unit” and of the size of the holes—as Oehkle alleges—establishes only that Texas RV did not properly install a correctly-sized air conditioning unit, but it does not demonstrate that Texas RV in fact made such representations. Even if we consider Parsons’ testimony that the water damage was caused by the exposed holes in the roof under the new air conditioner, there is no evidence that any of Texas RV’s purported misrepresentations were a producing cause of Oehkle’s injury. To recover on his DTPA claim, Oehkle had to establish that Texas RV made a misrepresentation or failed to disclose information to Oehkle on which he relied to his detriment and that Texas RV’s deceptive act—the misrepresentation or the failure to disclose—was a producing cause of his injury. See id. (defining producing cause as “a substantial factor which brings about the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred”). It is not enough for Oehkle to show that Texas RV installed a wrong-sized air conditioner or failed to seal the holes in the RV’s roof when Texas RV installed the new unit and that Oehkle’s damages were caused when 23 water seeped into the RV through those holes. Oehkle had to provide some evidence of a causal relationship between the water damage sustained by the RV and Texas RV’s alleged misrepresentation, not Texas RV’s purportedly defective installation of the new air conditioner. 3. Agreement conferring or involving rights Oehkle also argues that the evidence demonstrates that Texas RV represented to him that the invoices he signed conferred or involved rights that they did not have or involve. For support, he argues that Texas RV represented to Oehkle that the invoices “involved several workmanlike warranties and would indemnify any damage caused” by Texas RV but “when [Oehlke] returned his vehicle after discovery of damage to the interior, [Texas RV] offered no such warranty.” The invoices contain an express warranty “for parts and labor, 1 Year or 12,000 miles, which ever occurs first.” There is no evidence that Texas RV told Oehlke that the invoices conferred warranty rights they did not confer or required Texas RV to indemnify Oehlke for any damage to the RV caused by Texas RV. Evidence that Texas RV told Oehkle that the RV’s water damage was not covered by the warranty does not demonstrate that Texas RV misrepresented to Oehkle the 24 nature of the invoices or the rights they conferred or involved. At most, such evidence raises a question as to whether Texas RV fulfilled its warranty obligations.5 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s findings that Texas RV violated the DTPA, crediting favorable evidence if a reasonable factfinder could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not, we conclude there is no evidence Texas RV engaged in a false, misleading, or deceptive act on which Oehkle relied to his detriment and that any such act was a producing cause of Oehkle’s injury. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 827. We thus sustain Texas RV’s first issue challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding that Texas RV violated the DTPA.6 5 Although a breach of warranty claim can be asserted under Section 17.50(a)(2) of the DTPA, Oehkle neither asserted a Section 17.50(a)(2) DTPA claim, nor was the jury asked to determine whether Texas RV violated any warranty, whether express or implied. See TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.50(a)(2) (stating consumer may bring DTPA claim based on “breach of an express or implied warranty”); Nghiem v. Sajib, 567 S.W.3d 718, 723 (Tex. 2019). Instead, Oehkle brought his DTPA claim exclusively under Subsection (a)(1) which authorizes claims based on “the use or employment by any person of a false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice,” as defined in S