1950, writ dism’d) (same as Hunter); Bankers Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Atwood, 205 S.W.2d 74, 77 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1947, no writ) (same as Hunter); Spears Dairy v. Davis, 125 S.W.2d 382, 383 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1939, no writ) (same as Hunter and stating that party is required to object to the conditioning instruction and to anticipate that jury may answer initial question in such a way that it fails to answer subsequent questions that are improperly conditioned on the jury's answer to the initial question). 49 . The Insureds rely on Spencer v. Eagle Star Insurance Co. of America; however, Spencer is not on point because it did not involve a conditional submission and because an objection was made to the defect in the jury charge. See 876 S.W.2d 154, 157 (Tex.1994) (<HOLDING>). 50 . Hugel testified by videotaped deposition
holding that trial court erred in submitting disjunctive charge holding that the district court erred in failing to properly charge the jury on defendants affirmative defenses holding that trial court erred in rendering takenothing judgment notwithstanding jurys verdict in favor of plaintiff based on defendants properly preserved charge error and concluding that proper remedy was for trial  court to grant new trial based on the charge error holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict