fees and stating, " ‘[a] trial court may not disregard a jury’s answer because it is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. In such a situation, the trial court may only grant a new trial’ " (quoting Alm v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 717 S.W.2d 588, 594 (Tex.1986))). 46 . According to the Insureds’ brief in support of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, Ocean Marine and Anglo American failed to pay the full amount of the Insureds' losses in connection with the litigation and settlement of the Derrick suits. 47 . Brown & Brown of Tex., Inc. v. Omni Metals, Inc., — S.W.3d —, —, 2008 WL 746522, at *1 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] March 20, 2008, no pet.). 48 . See Little Rock Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Dunn, 148 Tex. 197, 203-04, 222 S.W.2d 985, 989-90 (1949) (<HOLDING>), modified on other grounds by Bradford v.
holding appellant could not complain of jurys failure to answer question because the charge instructed the jury not to do so based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction holding party that failed to object to instruction conditioning submission of a jurys question on its answer to a question waived that partys right to have the jury make findings as to the subsequent question holding appellant could not obtain a new trial so that jury could answer liability question because the charge instructed the jury not to answer the question based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction holding failure to object to conditioning instructions waived error arising from the jurys failure to answer question when answer could not be implied and that lack of objection waived right to new trial to have jury answer questions holding failure to object to conditioning instructions waived error arising from the jurys failure to answer question