In Subaru of America, Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212, 221, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 907 (Tex. 2002), the Texas Supreme Court addressed a similar situation. In that case, the court held that the Texas Motor Vehicle Board (the "agency") had exclusive jurisdiction over matters governed by the Texas Motor Vehicle Code (the "Code"). However, one of the claims asserted by the respondent was for breach of an oral contract. Essential to resolution of the breach of contract claim was an issue governed by the Code and therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the agency. The court noted that the respondent must first exhaust its administrative remedies and obtain a final board decision on the Code issue. Id. at 223, 225. Later in the opinion, the court explained two possible dispositions where an agency has exclusive jurisdiction. Typically, when a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because an agency has exclusive jurisdiction, the trial court must dismiss without prejudice such claims falling within the agency's jurisdiction. . . .However, we recently reiterated that, "if a claim is not within a court's jurisdiction, and the impediment to jurisdiction cannot be removed, then it must be dismissed; but if the impediment to jurisdiction could be removed, then the court may abate proceedings to allow a reasonable opportunity for the jurisdictional problem to be cured." (quoting American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Fodge, 63 S.W.3d 801, 805, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 122 Tex. 2001) (Id. at 227-28.) Because the jurisdictional impediment to the breach of oral contract claim could be removed by securing the necessary findings from the agency, the court remanded the claim to the trial court with instructions to abate the proceedings until the respondent exhausted its administrative remedies. Id. 228.