How have courts apportion attorney fees between contract and tort damages?

If the attorney fee provision is broad enough to encompass contract and noncontract claims, in awarding fees to the prevailing party it unnecessary to apportion fees between those claims. ( Cruz v. Ayromloo (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1277, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 725 [Here, the broad language of the attorney fee clause in the lease agreement covered all fees in any civil action stemming from the lease. The attorney fees clause in the lease provided, If civil action is instituted in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover court costs and any reasonable attorney's fees. [Fn.] The underlying civil action encompassed both breach of contract and tort causes of action arising from the tenants' leases with appellant. Therefore, the trial court did not have to base its award solely on breach of contract damages because the lease contemplated recovery of attorney fees for all claims in any civil action in connection with the lease. Apportionment of fees for the breach of contract and tort causes of action was thus unnecessary because the broad language of the attorney fee clause

[216 Cal.App.4th 993]