In Concept Gen. Contracting, Inc. v. Asbestos Maint. Servs., Inc., 346 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2011, pet. denied), BW Affordable Housing, L.P. contracted with Concept General Contracting, Inc. to renovate some apartment units. Id. at 178. As part of this project, Concept and Asbestos Maintenance Services, Inc. (AMS) entered into a subcontract for AMS to provide asbestos abatement for certain, specific areas. Id. During the course of the project, Concept requested additional work. Id. AMS gave Concept a quote for the additional work, and after the work was performed, Concept paid AMS for the additional work. Id. While AMS was still performing the work pursuant to the contracts, Concept's construction superintendent kept adding additional areas to the specified area. Id. Although Concept paid for some of the additional work, Concept stopped paying at a certain point in time, and AMS eventually stopped working. Id. AMS sued Concept to recover damages for the work performed and judgment was entered in favor of AMS. Id. On appeal, Concept asserted it could not be liable for quantum meruit damages because it did not own the apartment units. Id. at 181-82. The Amarillo court first noted in order to recover quantum meruit damages, the plaintiff must show that its efforts were undertaken for the person sought to be charged. Id. at 182. The court also noted the evidence was clear that AMS contracted with Concept and never dealt with BW directly. Id. Finally, the court noted that all of the extra work was requested at the direction of Concept's construction superintendent. Id. Therefore, the court held that AMS performed the extra work for Concept, not BW. Id. The court also held that the work was performed for Concept's benefit because the evidence established that Concept needed AMS's abatement work to complete its general contract with BW. Id.