was in its “Supplemental Briefing and Motions for Clarification and Reconsideration in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs Greenspoint Dodge and Jack Apple, Jr.,” which was filed after the trial court granted partial summary judgment for Greenspoint and denied Daimler’s motion. We cannot conclude that the trial court erred by rendering summary judgment in favor of Greenspoint when Daimler did not expressly present in its summary judgment response the grounds that it now asserts on appeal. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c) (“Issues not expressly presented to the trial court by written motion, answer or other response shall not be considered on appeal as grounds for reversal.”); Rayl v. Borger Econ. Dev. Corp., 963 S.W.2d 109, 114 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). We conclude the broadened garage coverage is
recognizing appellate court may not reverse a summary judgment on a basis not raised by the appellant on appeal holding that a grant of summary judgment in favor of one party creates a final judgment allowing appellate review of denial of opposing partys summary judgment motion holding that summary judgment must be affirmed where multiple grounds are asserted and the appellant does not attack all grounds on appeal holding that party may not appeal summary judgment in favor of opponent when grounds opposing summary judgment asserted on appeal were not raised before trial court holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion