at 498; Corley, 246 F.Supp.2d at 573. But we rely solely on those terms except in the case of ambiguity, Koelsch, 132 S.W.3d at 498, which is not an issue here. We may not, therefore, add terms not present in the easement, as Bluebonnet’s and Petro-Guard’s conten tion would require. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154, 161-68 (Tex.2003) (stating, in context of insurance-coverage determination, “we may neither rewrite the parties’ contract nor add to its language”); Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co. v. Swift Energy Co., 180 S.W.3d 635, 640-42 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (declining to “rewrite” drilling contract or “add to it under the guise of interpretation”); see also Oxford v. Williams Cos., 154 F.Supp.2d 942, 949-50 (E.D.Tex.2001) (memo op.) (<HOLDING>). 2. Technological Advancement or Development
recognizing that the dominant easement owner not the servient estate owner bears responsibility for maintaining an easement holding that owners of a dominant estate had a duty to keep the easement in a proper state of repair to avoid damaging the servient estate through erosion holding that owners of access easement had no claim for severance damages arising from condemnation of servient tenement holding that language of easement did not support restrictive interpretation proposed by landowner owners of servient estate holding that the burden on the servient estate cannot be increased without the consent of the owners of the servient estate and that the owner of the dominant estate to which the appurtenant easement is attached has no power to convey or expand use of that easement in connection with a tract of land owned by another