only. Riston responded that the two-year statute of limitations was tolled based on the doctrines of misnomer, relation back, and due diligence. She also responded that her breach of warranty claims were governed by the four-year statute of limitations. Subsequently, ThyssenKrupp filed an amended motion for summary judgment again asserting the statute of limitations but also challenging the merits of Riston’s breach of warranty claims. 4 . On appeal, Riston does not challenge the summary judgment on the breach of warranty claims. She addresses only the summary judgment on the claims governed by the two-year statute of limitations. Therefore, we will not address the summary judgment on the breach of warranty claims. See Jacobs v. Satterwhite, 65 S.W.3d 653, 655-56 (Tex. 2001) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Although an issue of first impression in
recognizing appellate court may not reverse a summary judgment on a basis not raised by the appellant on appeal holding that party may not appeal summary judgment in favor of opponent when grounds opposing summary judgment asserted on appeal were not raised before trial court holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion holding appellate courts cannot reverse judgment  on grounds not raised on appeal recognizing that appellate court may reverse trial courts judgment when it is based on an erroneous conclusion of law