relationship of self-insured/claims-handling-agent also imposed contractual duties on Zurich to properly handle and pay claims within the deductible. Because we have rejected Methodist’s contention regarding the parties’ relationship, we also reject this suggestion. Moreover, regardless of how the parties’ relationship is characterized, like the Dud-dlesten court, we must consider the terms of their contract when evaluating the con-traetual duties owed by Zurich to Methodist and enforce it as written. See Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342, 345 (Tex.2006) (stating court’s primary concern when interpreting contract is to ascertain and give effect to intent of parties as expressed in the contract); Royal Indem. Co. v. Marshall, 388 S.W.2d 176, 181 (Tex.1965) (<HOLDING>); see also Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI
holding that when a statutes terms are clear and unambiguous on their face there is no room for statutory construction and a court must apply the statute according to its literal meaning recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms holding that circuit courts failure to apply statute according to its clear and unambiguous terms amounted to failure to apply clearly established law holding that if the statutory terms are unambiguous a courts review ends and the statute is construed according to the plain meaning of its words holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties