to make all required disclosures, or that Aon failed to provide Horizon with insurance coverage. There well may be weaknesses in one or more of Horizon’s liability theories, the damages sought under the Claims, and the evidence to support the allegations upon which the Claims are based. However, any such problems are not before this court. Our review is strictly limited to the grounds on which the trial court granted summary judgment. This court may affirm the trial court’s summary judgment based only on a ground expressly stated in Aon’s motions. See Stiles v. Resolution Trust Corp., 867 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Tex.1993). As to the Claims, Aon expressly stated only two grounds in its motions for traditional summary judgment — (1) election of r of Dallas, 491 S.W.2d 869, 871-72 (Tex.1973) (<HOLDING>); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. First Nat’l Bank of
holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous holding that election of remedies did not apply because finance companys obtaining final judgment on contract claims against individual who signed contracts himself and also allegedly forged execution of company on the contracts was not inconsistent with suing the bank that was the first victim of the forger and then allegedly made false representations to finance company so that it would refinance the forgers debt with the bank holding the bank liable where the bank had almost complete control over the operation of the company during its last three quarters of operation and where withheld taxes were not paid to the irs on instructions from the bank holding a department store was not allowed to collect finance charges on its retail installment contracts and revolving charge accounts that were in excess of the interest rate allowed by statute however the store was allowed to assess finance charges in the amount allowed by statute holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims