81 award for this damages category was well within the range to which Byrd testified. See, e.g.,Gulf States Utils. Co. v. Low , 79 S.W.3d 561, 566 (Tex. 2002) (jury generally has discretion to award damages within the range of evidence presented at trial); Ho & Huang Props., L.P. v. Parkway Dental Assocs., P.A. , 529 S.W.3d 102, 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (same). Byrd also explained how he calculated the "Extra Foreman Costs."

"[T]o show that an attorney's-fees finding is excessive, a complaining party must establish that the evidence is factually insufficient to support the finding." Ho & Huang Props., L.P. v. Parkway Dental Assocs., P.A., No. 14-14-00528-CV, 529 S.W.3d 102, 122, 2017 WL 2268915, at *14 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 24, 2017, no pet. h.). We note that Daily has not raised a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence, and he does not otherwise argue that the award of attorney's fees was excessive.

.Ho & Huang Properties, L.P. v. Parkway Dental Assocs., 529 S.W.3d 102, 123 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied); see Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc. v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 173 F.Supp.3d 363, 460 (N.D. Tex. 2016). Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 304.103 (West 2021)

Under both standards, the factfinder is the sole judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony. Ho &Huang Props. v. Parkway Dental Assocs., 529 S.W.3d 102, 109 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). We may not substitute our own judgment for that of the factfinder even if we would reach a different answer on the evidence.

We assume without deciding that W&T preserved error in the trial court and did not waive error on appeal concerning these arguments. But see, e.g., Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cty. v. Douglas, 544 S.W.3d 486, 495 n.13 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) ("Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived."); Ho & Huang Props., L.P. v. Parkway Dental Assocs., P.A., 529 S.W.3d 102, 115 n.6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (same). W&T agrees that Meyers's injury occurred on an oil and gas platform located off the coast of Louisiana.

We assume without deciding that W & T preserved error in the trial court and did not waive error on appeal concerning these arguments. But see, e.g. , Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cty. v. Douglas , 544 S.W.3d 486, 495 n.13 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) ("Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived."); Ho & Huang Props., L.P. v. Parkway Dental Assocs., P.A. , 529 S.W.3d 102, 115 n.6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (same). All law applicable to the Outer Continental Shelf is federal law, but to fill the substantial ‘gaps’ in the coverage of federal law, OCSLA borrows ‘the applicable and not inconsistent’ laws of the adjacent States as surrogate federal law.

Based on this undisputed evidence of Vast's abandonment, the jury's finding that Vast failed to comply with the Subcontract is supported by legally sufficient evidence.SeeHo & Huang Props., L.P. v. Parkway Dental Assocs., P.A. , No. 14-14-00528-CV, 529 S.W.3d 102, 119–120, 2017 WL 2268915, at *12-13 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 24, 2017, no pet. h.) (concluding that legally sufficient evidence supported jury's finding in breach of contract case); see alsoTrinity Materials , 2014 WL 7464023, at *4-5. Abandonment of a contract constitutes a breach.