With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". yet a third time under the discussion of ‘why.’ 934 S.W.2d at 457 (emphasis added). Finally, the court of appeals properly applied the Kraus factors and explained why the evidence supported the punitive damages award. Accordingly, we conclude that the court of appeals’ factual sufficiency review of the punitive damages award, despite the court’s occasional misleading language, was proper. IY. PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARD-RECALCULATION Mobil also argues that the court of appeals erred by including, sua sponte, the estate’s actual damages in its punitive damages calculation, thereby adding $91,555.58 to the punitive damages award. We agree. A court of appeals cannot modify a judgment without a point of error asking it to do so. See Texas Nat’l Bank v. Karnes, 717 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Tex.1986)(<HOLDING>). Here, the jury charge asked the jury to

A: holding that the court of appeals erred in modifying the judgment to include attorneys fees when the trial courts refusal to grant attorneys fees was not the subject of a point of error
B: holding trial court had no authority to award attorneys fees when arbitrator had stated he would not award attorneys fees
C: holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees
D: holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees
A.