court has reached the opposite conclusion in a case involving similar facts, we are not bound to follow the decision of another court of appeals. See Delamora v. State, 128 S.W.3d 344, 359 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, pet. ref'd); see also Shook v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 515, 244 S.W.2d 220, 221 (1951) (court not bound to follow a decision of a court of equal jurisdiction); Lambert v. Affiliated. Foods, Inc., 20 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex.App.Amarillo 1999), aff'd sub nom. Lawrence v. C.D.B. Services Inc., 44 S.W.3d 544 (Tex.2001). 18 . The dissent reasons that Crown Cork raised the issue in its reply. But Crown Cork may not use its reply to assert new grounds for summary judgment. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c); see also Sanders v. Capitol Area Council, 930 S.W.2d 905, 911 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, no writ) (<HOLDING>); Sams v. N.L. Indus., Inc., 735 S.W.2d 486,
holding that nonmovants failure to except or respond cannot supply by default the grounds for summary judgment or the summary judgment proof necessary to establish the movants right holding that a party may not raise a new claim in its response to a dispositive motion holding movant may not raise new grounds for summary judgment in reply to nonmovants response holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious holding that a plaintiff may not raise a new legal claim in response to summary judgment