summary judgment dismissing the Claims based on judicial estoppel. Accordingly, we reverse, sever, and remand that portion of the trial court’s judgment that dismisses Horizon’s claims for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. 1 . The cases Horizon cites are not on point. See Duzich v. Marine Office of Am. Corp., 980 S.W.2d 857, 865 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, pet. denied) (stating that insurer denied that broker was its agent but provided no evidence in support of this assertion, that insurance brokers are generally considered agents of the insured, and that fact issues existed as to whether insurer was estopped from denying that broker was its agent); Robles v. Consol. Graphics, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 552, 557 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. v. Great Sw.
holding that liability to the insured for acts or contracts of an insurance agent within the scope of his agency with a full disclosure of the principal rests on the company holding that party was an agent under the plain terms of his contracts holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes holding that under illinois law silence can constitute acceptance under the terms of the restatement of contracts holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous