NO. 07-10-0043-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C AUGUST 17, 2011

UNITED SUPERMARKETS, L.L.C., APPELLANT

v. SANDRA RAMIREZ, APPELLEE

FROM THE 99 TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2005-545,560; HONORABLE WI LLIAM C. SOWDER, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, United Supermarkets, L.L.C., appeal s the trial court's order denying its application to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration aw ard in favor of Appellee, Sandra Ramirez. In a single issue, United asserts the trial court erred in entering an award premised on the finding by Arbitrator Frank E. Murchi son that United was liable for Ramirez's injuries under a premises liabi lity theory without also finding United had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition. We affirm.2 Background
In December 2008, Ramirez filed her orig inal petition assert ing United was liable for injuries she sustained when she slipped on ice while stocking a freezer. Thereafter, Ramirez and United agr eed to arbitration.
In November 2009, an arbitration pr oceeding was held, and in December, the Arbitrator issued his report and award. T he Arbitrator found in Ramirez's favor and awarded damages to Ramirez because Un ited was negligent (1) under a business invitee premises liability theory and (2) in failing to provide Ramirez a safe place to work in connection with the risk of slipping on ice buildup in the walk-in freezer.
In January 2010, United filed an applicati on to vacate, modify or correct the Arbitrator's award. In its application, United only asserted that the Arbitrator's award was contrary to Texas law asserting that act ual or constructive knowledge is necessary to support Ramirez's claim of negligence under a premises li ability theory. The trial court denied United's applicat ion and this appeal followed.
Analysis
Rule 33.1(a) of the Texas Rules of Ap pellate Procedure requires, among other things, that the record show that the tr ial court "ruled on [a] request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly" bef ore a complaint may be presented for appellate review. Tex. R. App. P. 33. 1(a)(2)(A). If an argument is pr esented for the first time on appeal, it is waived. See Marine Transport Corp. v. Methodist Hospital , 221 S.W.3d 138, 147 n.3 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dis t.] 2006, no pet.). Because United's3 application did not challenge th e Arbitrator's determination that United was negligent in failing to provide Ramirez a safe place to work in connection with the risk of slipping on ice buildup in the walk-in freezer, this issue was not preserved our review.

Because the trial court's denial of United's application, as well as the Arbitrator's award, may have been based upon a single gr ound not specifically challenged by United before the trial court and, therefore, waived on appeal, t he trial court's order must stand. See Malooly Brothers, Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970); Reese v. Beaumont Bank, N.A., 790 S.W.2d 801, 804-05 (Tex.App. --Beaumont 1990, no pet.); Rodriguez v. Morgan , 584 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tex. Civ.App.--Austin 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Accordingly, United's single issue is overruled.

Conclusion

The trial court's denial of Unit ed's application is affirmed.

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice