("Dresser’s ... motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict [was] overruled by operation of law.”); Brown v. Zimmerman, 160 S.W.3d 695, 702 n. 7 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.) ("The trial court did not rule on the motion for Qjnov therefore the motion was overruled by operation of law.”). Daewoo therefore apprised the trial court of its points that are questions of law and preserved them for appellate review. See Holland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 91, 94-95 (Tex.1999) (explaining that pure questions of law are generally not waived by failure to object to the jury charge unless the trial court was required to resolve the legal issue before the jury could properly perform its fact-finding role); see also Ulico Cas. Co. v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 262 S.W.3d 773, 777 (Tex.2008) (<HOLDING>). We note, however, that in portraying its
holding that a party must have made a directed verdict motion at trial on the specific issue which is the basis of the jnov holding party that filed motions for summary judgment directed verdict and jnov preserved complaint drat issue should not have been submitted to jury even though party submitted jury questions on same issue holding the denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue which is later submitted to the jury is not reviewable holding that motions to dismiss should have been converted into motions for summary judgment where the district court relied upon contract documents submitted by the defendant holding denial of jury trial was harmless because evidence was insufficient to create issue of fact for submission to jury and insurer would have been entitled to directed verdict