See Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 121 (Tex.1996) (holding that defendant bore burden of establishing right to summary judgment on basis of statute of repose defense); Nexen Inc. v. Gulf Interstate Eng'g Co., 224 S.W.3d 412, 416 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (observing that statute of repose operates as affirmative defense on which defendant bears burden of proof); see alsoTex.R. Civ. P. 94. Unless Occidental conclusively established each element of its affirmative defense, its failure to obtain a jury finding in its favor is fatal. See Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., 729 S.W.2d 768, 805–06 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding that, unless an affirmative defense is established as matter of law, defendant bears burden of obtaining jury findings necessary to support defense); Whitney Nat'l. Bank v. Baker, 122 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (stating that, when affirmative defense was not submitted to jury, court reviews record to determine whether issue was disputed or whether defense was conclusively established by evidence). Occidental has not argued that it is entitled to any deemed jury findings.

P. 94. Unless Occidental conclusively established each element of its affirmative defense, its failure to obtain a jury finding in its favor is fatal.See Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., 729 S.W.2d 768, 805-06 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding that, unless an affirmative defense is established as matter of law, defendant bears burden of obtaining jury findings necessary to support defense); Whitney Nat'l Bank v. Baker, 122 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (stating that, when affirmative defense was not submitted to jury, court reviews record to determine whether issue was disputed or whether defense was conclusively established by evidence). Occidental has not argued that it is entitled to any deemed jury findings.

P. 94. Unless Occidental conclusively established each element of its affirmative defense, its failure to obtain a jury finding in its favor is fatal.See Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., 729 S.W.2d 768, 805-06 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding that, unless an affirmative defense is established as matter of law, defendant bears burden of obtaining jury findings necessary to support defense); Whitney Nat'l Bank v. Baker, 122 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (stating that, when affirmative defense was not submitted to jury, court reviews record to determine whether issue was disputed or whether defense was conclusively established by evidence). Occidental has not argued that it is entitled to any deemed jury findings.

P. 94. Unless Occidental conclusively established each element of its defense, its failure to obtain a jury finding in its favor is fatal.See Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., 729 S.W.2d 768, 805-806 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding that, unless an affirmative defense is established as matter of law, defendant bears burden of obtaining jury findings necessary to support defense); Whitney Nat'l Bank v. Baker, 122 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (stating that, when affirmative defense was not submitted to jury, court reviews record to determine whether issue was disputed or whether defense was conclusively established by evidence). Occidental has not argued that it is entitled to any deemed jury findings.

We also review the trial court's denial of a motion for jnov under a legal sufficiency standard. SeeCity of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 823 (Tex.2005); Whitney Nat'l Bank v. Baker, 122 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). When, as here, a party does not submit an affirmative defense to the jury, we review the record to determine whether the issue was disputed or whether the evidence conclusively established the defense.

We review the denial of a motion for judgment nov under a legal sufficiency standard. Whitney Nat'l Bank v. Baker, 122 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). When, as here, a party does not submit her affirmative defense to the jury, we review the record to determine whether the issue was disputed or whether the defense was conclusively established by the evidence.

Under Texas law, a corporation or other legal entity can conduct business only through natural persons. Whitney Nat. Bank v. Baker, 122 S.W.3d 204 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, reh. overruled). Acts of a corporate agent are generally deemed to be the acts of the corporation.

See, e.g., Cersonsky, "Deposit Agreements Between Banks and Their Customers — A Wall of Protection or a Wall With a False Foundation?", 31 TEX. TECH. L.REV. 1 (2000). See, generally: as to New Jersey, All American Auto Salvage v. Camp's Auto Wreckers, 146 N.J. 15, 24 (1996) (deposit of funds into general account transfers ownership of funds to bank and makes depositor the bank's creditor); Pagano v. United Jersey Bank, 143 N.J. 220, 233 (1996); Keil v. National Westminster Bank, Inc., 311 N.J. Super. 473 (App.Div. 1998); as to Texas, Bank One, Texas, N.A. v Sunbelt Sav., F.S.B., 824 S.W.2d 557, 558 (Tex. 1992) ("Funds placed with a bank ordinarily become general deposits which create a debtor-creditor relationship between the bank and its depositor"; a creditor who "wants to challenge title to funds held by a third party . . . should seek a writ of garnishment naming the nominal owner not the true owner"); Whitney Nat'l Bank v. Baker, 122 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Tex.App. 2003) ("The name on the account is prima facie proof of ownership of the account" and relying on Sunbelt Sav. for the proposition that "[a] bank is entitled to rely on its deposit agreement when determining to whom it is indebted"); Newsome v. Charter Bank Colonial, 940 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.App. 1997); Overton Bank Trust, N.A. v. PaineWebber, Inc., 922 S.W.2d 311, 313 (Tex.App. 1996); In re World Access, Inc., 301 B.R. 217, 265 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2003); and, as to Pennsylvania, In re Blose's Estate, 374 Pa. 100, 103 (1953) (a signature card is not necessary to prove ownership of a bank account); Caban v. Commonwealth Dept. of Public Welfare, 60 Pa. Commw. 432, 434-35 (1981) (it is presumed that title to a deposit is in the person in whose name it was made). More specifically to the facts of this case, the plaintiffs primarily rely on the complex and interconnected contractual relationships between and among Pemaquid/United, Legion, and the offshore Mutual companies. Does the "rent-a-captive" web

See also Speedy Stop Food Stores, Ltd. v. Reid Rd. Mun. Util. Dist. No. 2, 282 S.W.3d 652, 656 n.2 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) ("It is well-established that corporations can act only through human agents and that, when an officer or corporate representative acts on behalf of a corporate entity, that act is the act of the corporation itself." (citing Hammerly Oaks, Inc. v. Edwards, 958 S.W.2d 387, 391 (Tex.1997))), aff'd, 337 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. 2011); Whitney Nat'l Bank v. Baker, 122 S.W.3d 204, 209 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) ("A corporation or other legal entity can conduct business only through natural persons.").

We therefore find that the bank fulfilled its duty of making the statements available to Rogers and that the remaining provisions of § 75-4-406 are applicable to the case at bar. See Whitney Nat'l Bank v. Baker, 122 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Tex.Ct.App. 2003) (bank's duty under § 4-406 is satisfied when bank sends regular monthly statements to customer). ¶ 15.