Smith-Reagan & Associates, Inc. D/B/A Smith-Reagan Insurance Agency v. Fort Ringgold Limited, Pete Diaz III, Aaron Diaz and Monica Aguillon, 04-13-00608-CV

Fort Ringgold (owners/operators of Fort Ringgold Motor Inn) sued their insurance agent Smith-Reagan for failing to procure requested business interruption (BI) coverage after storm damage rendered about two‑thirds of hotel rooms unusable.
The hotel obtained property‑damage coverage but not BI coverage; the property insurer instructed the hotel to shut damaged rooms and the hotel subsequently suffered substantial lost revenue and eventually closed.
At trial a jury awarded $325,000 for losses that "would not have occurred had [Smith‑Reagan] procured insurance for Fort Ringgold that included coverage for business interruption."
On appeal the Fourth Court of Appeals reversed and rendered a take‑nothing judgment, concluding there was legally insufficient evidence to show how much BI benefits would have been paid had the coverage been procured.
Appellees moved for rehearing, arguing the panel ignored record evidence (hotel gross revenue, expert testimony on BI calculation, and historical occupancy and expense testimony) that provided at least a scintilla of evidence supporting the jury award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fort Ringgold)	Defendant's Argument (Smith‑Reagan)	Held (panel)
Legal sufficiency of evidence of damages (BI benefits)	Surles (defense expert) testified what BI pays (net profit + continuing expenses); Surles reviewed occupancy records (≈57%); Diaz gave gross lost revenue and said expenses remained largely unchanged — together provide a basis to calculate lost BI and support the $325,000 award	No admissible proof showing how BI would have been calculated or the figures needed (occupancy, continuing expenses) to convert gross lost revenue into insured BI benefits	The appellate panel concluded the evidence was legally insufficient and reversed and rendered a take‑nothing judgment (Appellees seek rehearing)
Proof of method/form of BI coverage	There was no need to produce a specific exemplar policy; expert testimony described the typical BI calculation and applied occupancy/expense evidence from the record	Without an actual policy or exemplar, calculation of insurer payment is speculative	Panel found insufficiency as to how BI loss would have been calculated (per its opinion); appellees argue the panel overlooked expert and record evidence

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑sufficiency review requires considering all evidence in the record, crediting favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (court must review entire record in sufficiency challenges)
Kroger v. Texas Ltd. P'ship v. Suberu, 216 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. 2006) (more‑than‑scintilla standard explained)
Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (describes when evidence permits different reasonable conclusions)