is significant. Id. Determination of the nature of the motion for summary judgment under analysis is critical. Id. Accordingly, I first address how to review both parties’ motions. Here, Coastal brought its motion for summary judgment on its claim for contractual indemnity on traditional grounds. On the other hand, SWBT asserted that it brought its motion under both traditional and no-evidence grounds. SWBT filed “unified summary judgment exhibits” applicable to another pending motion and to its motion for summary judgment on Coastal’s contractual indemnity claim. I note that the mere existence of evidence attached to a no-evidence summary-judgment motion is not sufficient to allow the court to disregard the no-evidence motion. See Binur v. Jacobo, 135 S.W.3d 646, 651 (Tex.2004) (<HOLDING>). However, SWBT’s no-evidence motion merely
holding that where a court considering a rule 12b6 motion relies on matters outside the pleading the motion must be treated as a rule 56 motion for summary judgment holding that a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss should be treated as a motion for summary judgment when plaintiffs counsel relied upon facts outside the four corners of the complaint during oral argument of the motion holding that a motion to dismiss based on a forumselection clause should be treated as a rule 12b3 motion to dismiss for improper venue holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment holding that evidence attached to noevidence motion shall not be considered but motion should not be disregarded or treated as traditional motion