the Insureds’ JNOV motion. Under their third appellate issue, the Insureds assert the trial court erred by not rendering judgment in favor of the Insureds on the Unauthorized Insurance Claims, and the Insureds assert this court should render judgment that the Brokers are liable under these claims and remand for a new trial on damages under the Act. There are several problems with the Insureds’ argument. First, the Insureds never asked the trial court to render judgment that the Brokers are liable on the Unauthorized Insurance Claims and to order a new trial as to the damages under these claims. Therefore, the Insureds did not preserve error as to their third issue. See Tex.R.Afp. P. 33.1(a); Weinberger v. Longer, 222 S.W.3d 557, 567 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Second, even if the Insureds were asserting
holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of hearing by failing to object holding that appellant did not preserve error because he failed to obtain ruling on motion for continuance holding that appellant failed to preserve error because it did not present appellate complaint to trial court holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of trial by failing to object holding that defendant must request continuance and present brady complaint in motion for new trial to preserve complaint for appellate review