In Utica Nat'l Ins. Co. of Tex. v. McDonald, 814 S.W.2d 234, 236 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1991, writ denied), the insured's brother was prepared to give testimony about what his brother told him to do regarding setting fire to the insured home. The trial court sustained a hearsay objection and, on appeal, Utica claimed that the statement was admissible, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 801(e)(2)(E), as the statement of a co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The Fort Worth court affirmed, saying the lack of any tangible, material evidence of a conspiracy means the statement was not admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Id.