With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is not necessary today because appellants have waived their complaint by inadequate briefing. Appellants have not presented a single argument or citation in support of the negligence claim. They have failed to provide legal authorities or analysis in support of the proposition that an employee of State Farm owed or assumed a negligence duty to them. Therefore, appellants’ first issue fails on the basis of briefing waiver. 1 . As to appellants’ claims of breach of contract, negligence, and extra-contractual loss against State Farm, appellants provide no analysis or citations to the record or legal authorities. Therefore, appellants have waived these issues. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App .-Houston [14 Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). However, under binding precedent, courts

A: holding that even though courts interpret briefing requirements reasonably and liberally parties asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific argument and analysis citing the record and authorities in support of the parties argument
B: holding that appellate court will not consider an argument on appeal that is different from the specific argument presented to the trial court even if it relates to the same general issue
C: holding party must support argument with legal authority
D: holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument
A.