it neither breached the E & O policy nor made misrepresentations regarding the policy. 9 . On appeal, Great American also emphasizes that Primo’s live petition at the time of the summary judgment hearing acknowledged that "Travelers had pled standing by subrogation” and that Travelers alleged in its petition that it had "stepped into the shoes of" Briar Green. Great American thus contends it is undisputed that the petitions in the Travelers Suit alleged Travelers was a subrogee as well as an assignee of Briar Green, and therefore a successor in interest. Great American did not raise Travelers' allegation that it was Briar Green’s subrogee as a ground for application of the "Insured v. Insured” exclusion jn its motion for summary judgment, however. Cf. Olmstead, 383 S.W.3d at 652 (<HOLDING>). Great American’s reply to Primo’s response to
holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that a summary judgment motion must stand or fall on the grounds expressly presented in the motion holding court will not read between the lines in determining what grounds are presented to the trial court in motion for summary judgment holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious