Because the fee agreements authorized the Law Firm to deduct a portion of its common expenses from each appellant's recovery under these circumstances, we conclude the Law Firm did not breach the fee agreements when it did so. See May, 422 S.W.3d at 100 (stating that whether party has breached contract when facts are undisputed is question of law); see also Singleton v. Elliott, No. 14–13–00040–CV, 2014 WL 1922260, at *4 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] May 13, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding non-movant's summary judgment evidence did not raise fact issue preventing summary judgment on movant's breach of contract cause of action). Similarly, because we have determined that Agosto's affidavit does not address, let alone admit, that there were no “cases similarly situated,” appellants have failed to demonstrate that they raised a genuine issue of material fact that the Law Firm acted arbitrarily in breach of a fiduciary duty when it deducted a share of the common expenses from each appellant's recovery.