“the proposed Final Judgment should be revised to accurately reflect the jury’s exemplary damages award as to each individual Defendant rather than joint and several liability among all Defendants.” Further, the individual defendants argued in response to Horizon’s amended motion for entry of judgment that “[t]he jury was not asked to assess exemplary damages against Acadia or PRP..,. Acadia and PRP cannot be jointly and severally liable for the exemplary damages assessed against Saul, Palus, Ula-sewicz, Bayma, and Piechocki,” Acadia and PRP adopted the individual defendants’ arguments raised in their response to Horizon’s amended motion for entry of judgment. Thus, Acadia and PRP preserved error in the trial court. Cf. In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 353 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>); Pirtle v. Gregory, 629 S.W.2d 919, 920 (Tex.
holding in summary judgment context that appellate court may consider other grounds that the movant preserved for review and trial court did not rule on in the interest of judicial economy recognizing that preservationoferror rules support the strong interest in ensuring that our trial courts have an opportunity to correct errors as a matter of judicial economy holding that federal habeas relief is not available to correct errors of state law holding that because the contract dispute between the parties in this case constitutes a justiciable matter that is cognizable in our trial courts our courts had subject matter jurisdiction holding that in the interest of judicial economy we exercise our discretionary power to suspend the rules pertaining to interlocutory appeals and address the remainder of the defendants appeal