the E & O policy, Great American did not assert any basis for concluding as a matter of law that if Primo’s claim was ts motion for summary judgment, filed two days before the summary judgment hearing, does contend that "there should be no question that Travelers, as the assignee/subrogee, sue- ceeded to the interest of Briar Green’s rights against Primo.” Yet neither its original motion for summary judgment nor its first supplement to its motion for summary judgment invoked Travelers’ alleged subrogee status. We therefore do not consider whether Travelers pled sufficient facts to establish itself as Briar Green's subrogee or whether a subro-gee would qualify as a successor to Briar Green’s interest for purposes of the exclusion. Cf. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d at 141 (<HOLDING>). 10 . See Evanston Ins. Co., 256 S.W.3d at
holding that under eight corners rule focus is on underlying petitions factual allegations rather than legal theories holding that allegations of tampering went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility holding that in limine hearings are encouraged when courts are concerned with the factual rather than legal dimensions of the evidence holding rule 1 ls factual inquiry requirement violated only when no factual basis for allegations holding that a complaint need not clearly articulate the precise legal theories to provide fair notice