is the shortest limitations period applicable to the case. 32 . The Brokers did not assert this ground in their motion for partial summary judgment. Although the Brokers did raise this argument in their reply, the trial court stated that it did not consider the limitations arguments set forth in the reply brief, and the Brokers do not assert that the trial court erred in refusing to consider these arguments. 33 .In support of this contention, the Insureds cite Don Chapman Motor Sales, Inc. v. National Savings Insurance Co., 626 S.W.2d 592, 597 (Tex.App.-Austin 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 34 . See Guthrie v. Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 682 S.W.2d 634, 637 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 35 . See Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C., 73 S.W.3d 193, 200 (Tex.2002) (<HOLDING>). 36 . See No. 01-03-00637-CV, 2004 WL 2823147,
holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal holding that an attorney for a debtor owes a general fiduciary duty to preserve the bankruptcy estate holding that an agent owes a fiduciary duty to his principal holding that an attorney owes a fiduciary duty to persons though not strictly clients who he knows or should know rely on him in his professional capacity holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes