Ins. Code Ann. § 101.201. 43 . V.A.T.S. Insurance Code, art. 1.14-1, §§ 2(a)(5) and (6), added by Act of April 27, 1967, 60th Leg., R.S., ch. 185, § 1, 1967 Tex. Gen. Laws 400, 401-02. 44 . Question 10 was the predicate to Questions 11 and 12; thus, by answering Question 9 incorrectly, the jury failed to answer as many as three additional jury questions. 45 .As discussed further infra, the Insureds also asked the trial court to disregard the jury’s answer to Question Thirteen, which concerns the Insureds’ attorneys’ fees. But see Wagner v. Edlund, 229 S.W.3d 870, 877 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (reversing portion of JNOV concerning attorney er, 161 Tex. 427, 340 S.W.2d 772 (1960); Tex. Employers' Ins. Ass’n v. Ray, 68 S.W.2d 290, 295 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1933, writ ref'd) (<HOLDING>); Hunter v. Carter, 476 S.W.2d 41, 46 (Tex.
holding failure to object to conditioning instructions waived error arising from the jurys failure to answer question holding that party that failed to object to instruction that jury not answer a question based on its answer to the prior question waived that partys right to have the jury make findings as to the subsequent question holding party that failed to object to instruction conditioning submission of a jurys question on its answer to a question waived that partys right to have the jury make findings as to the subsequent question holding appellant could not complain of jurys failure to answer question because the charge instructed the jury not to do so based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction holding failure to object to conditioning instructions waived error arising from the jurys failure to answer question when answer could not be implied and that lack of objection waived right to new trial to have jury answer questions