intended for the offeree be able to modify the deadline for accepting or rejecting a settlement offer. See Tex. Civ. Prag. & Rem.Code Ann. § 42.005(b)(4)(F) (West 2008) (rules promulgated by supreme court implementing Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 42 to include procedure for “modifying, the deadline for making, withdrawing, accepting, or rejecting a settlement offer”). Therefore, Good Shepherd argues that we must harmonize Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 167.5(a) with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 42.005(b)(4)(F). It is well established that when a conflict arises between a statute and a rule of procedure, we must harmonize the statute and the rule if possible. See La Sara Grain Co. v. First Nat’l Bank of Mercedes, 673 S.W.2d 558, 565 (Tex.1984) (<HOLDING>). Ultimately, however, the statute prevails
holding that courts are to construe statutes so as to harmonize with other relevant laws if possible recognizing only state courts may authoritatively construe state statutes recognizing that the doctrine of in pari materia requires that statutes relating to the same subject be construed together to harmonize the statutes and give effect to legislative intent recognizing that courts should not construe statutes in a way that leads to absurd results holding that statutes should be interpreted so as to fit if possible all parts into a harmonious whole