issue. V. Issues Not Addressed Because of our disposition of MCI’s first issue, we will not address MCI’s factual sufficiency complaints in issues four and five, nor will we address MCI’s second (refusal to permit cross-examination) and seventh (charge error) issues. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.1. VI. Conclusion Having sustained in part MCI’s first issue, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Chief Justice GRAY dissenting. 1 . MCI joined Marcopolo, S.A., a Brazilian company that manufactured component parts of the bus, as a responsible third party, and also filed a third-party action against Marco-polo. Marcopolo made a special appearance, which the trial court sustained, and it s, 52 S.W.3d 737, 744-49 (Tex.2001) (<HOLDING>). 3 . While not determinative, we note that the
holding that common law misrepresentation claims were not preempted because they did not conflict with a fmvss holding that the safety act and fmvss 108 did not impliedly preempt commonlaw conspicuity tort based on inadequate lighting and reflectors on truck trailer holding that federal law did not preempt commonlaw fraud claim against cigarette manufacturer based on advertising of light cigarettes holding that the coast guards decision not to regulate propeller guards did not impliedly preempt petitioners tort claims holding that the safety act and fmvss 208 did not expressly or impliedly preempt a tort claim based on the manufacturers failure to install lap belts