their claims “as the sole and legal heirs and beneficiaries of Thomas M. Sigmundik, deceased and/or of the Estate of Thomas M. Sigmundik, deceased.” We have held that heirs in a survival action may sue on behalf of the decedent’s estate if they allege there is no administration pending and none is necessary, which was done here. See Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845, 850-51 (Tex.2005); Shepherd v. Ledford, 962 S.W.2d 28, 31-32 (Tex.1998). The Risk Pool seeks only to intervene in that action, and has standing to do so. Even if there had been a problem with the Risk Pool’s capacity, the Sigmundiks did not challenge the Risk Pool’s capacity to intervene in the survival action, so that argument has been waived. Tex.R. Civ. P. 93; Austin Nursing Ctr., 171 S.W.3d at 849 (<HOLDING>). As we noted in Fortis Benefits, “contract
holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal holding that a challenge to a partys capacity must be raised by a verified pleading in the trial court holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for review