under an "ensuing loss” exception within the policy). As correctly noted by the majority, appellants do not assert coverage under any “ensuing loss” exception to the policy. See 246 S.W.3d at 764 p. 3, n. 1. Appellants, in response to State Farm's motion for summary judgement, conceded that "[t]he ‘ensuing loss’ provision of the policy has nothing to do with this claim.” 13 . See Fiess, 202 S.W.3d at 747; Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 521 (Tex.1995). 14 . See Fiess, 202 S.W.3d at 747. 15 . See Esquivel, 992 S.W.2d at 544 (concluding summary judgment is appropriate when a case involves interpretation of an unambiguous contract). 16 . Higginbotham, 103 F.3d at 460. 17 . Penrod Dulling Corp. v. Williams, 868 S.W.2d 294, 295 (Tex. 1993) (<HOLDING>). 18 . Some courts of appeals have concluded
holding that court of appeals erred in considering itself bound by fifth circuit precedents holding that at summary judgment hearing trial court erred by considering theory not raised in the pleadings holding that the governor erred in considering evidence that was not before the board holding that the court of appeals was correct to apply a supreme court precedent despite the precedents infirmities and its increasingly wobbly motheaten foundations because it is this courts prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision