case and is not a proper basis for judicial estoppel. See Long, 291 S.W.2d at 295; Brown, 124 S.W.3d at 898; Miles, 668 S.W.2d at 512. Because none of the statements upon which Aon relies as a basis for judicial estoppel satisfy the requirements for judicial estoppel, the trial court erred to the extent it granted summary judgment dismissing the Claims based on judicial estop-pel. IY. Conclusion As to the alleged acts or omissions at issue in this case, Aon was not acting as Horizon’s agent under the unambiguous language of the Agreement and thus owed no fiduciary duty. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment to the extent the trial court dismissed Horizon’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The only summary-judgment gr App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied) (<HOLDING>); West v. Touchstone, 620 S.W.2d 687, 690
holding that plaintiffs did not plead fraud where the complaint only alleged a breach of fiduciary duty holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs