reasons that entitle the movant to summary judgment, in other words, 'why' the movant should be granted summary judgment.” Garza v. CTXMort. Co., LLC, 285 S.W.3d 919, 923 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.). One of the grounds Great American alleged for why it was entitled to summary judgment was that the unambiguous language of the Insured v. Insured exclusion in the policy at issue barred the claim as a matter of law. As an appellate court, reviewing a summary judgment on contract interpretation, we are not bound by the interpretation assigned by the parties; instead, we independently determine the intent of the parties as shown by the written instruments. See City of Bunker Hill Village v. Mem’l Villages Water Auth., 809 S.W.2d 309, 310-11 (Tex. App-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Even if the contracting parties had
holding that statements made in the course of negotiation were not contracts and such statements were merged into the final written agreement holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous holding that the government was not bound by its waivers in three prior contracts holding that the aafes was an agency under the apa where by statute its contracts were considered contracts with the federal government and any judgments against it were paid out of the federal treasury