entitle Waloon to judgment on these claims. See Johnson, 290 S.W.3d at 889-90; In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d at 195; Scottish Union & Nat’l Ins. Co., 8 S.W. at 631; Fraiman, 514 S.W.2d at 344-45; Teachworth, 898 F.2d at 1061-62. The only evidence submitted by Waloon in support of the First Motion or Second Motion was the appraisal award. Waloon did not attach the insurance policy to either motion. In neither motion did Waloon assert (1) that the summary-judgment evidence conclusively proved all the essential elements of Waloon’s breach-of-contract claims or (2) that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that Waloon was entitled to judgment as a matter of law against Security on these claims. See MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex.1986) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). None of the grounds expressly stated in
holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that summary judgment should be denied where the moving party does not show that there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact with respect to each essential element of the claim holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law recognizing that summary judgment on any and all aspects of a partys claim including damages is proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact