Is a contractor entitled to contractual attorney fees?

In sum, we decline to take an overly formalistic approach to deciding whether a prevailing party is entitled to contractual attorney fees. Certainly, any inquiry begins with the language of the attorney fees provision itself. (See Santisas , supra , 17 Cal.4th at pp. 607-608, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 830, 951 P.2d 399.) However, as this case illustrates, a complicated and difficult set of facts may sometimes obscure whether a claim on which attorney fees are incurred is within the scope of a fees provision. (See id. at p. 602, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 830, 951 P.2d 399 ; see also Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc ., supra , 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 1344, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 154 [none of the various tortious causes of action was " quite independent of the basic contractual arrangement "].) Thus, if the facts in future cases warrant it, courts "should consider the pleaded theories of recovery, the theories asserted and the evidence produced at trial,

[3 Cal.5th 761]

if any, and also any additional evidence submitted on the motion in order to identify the legal basis of the prevailing party's recovery." ( Boyd v. Oscar Fisher Co ., supra , 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 377, 258 Cal.Rptr. 473.)