In National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Ninth Court of Appeals, 864 S.W.2d 58, 60, 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 84 (Tex. 1993) the Court implicitly rejected any requirement that an appellant admit its mistake in order to provide a reasonable explanation for its untimely filing. There, the appellee contended that, because National Union's motion failed to contain a reasonable explanation for its late filing, National Union could not assert confusion about the law as a justification for not complying with the rules. Id. at n.5. In disapproving that approach, the Court stated: We are unwilling to hold that a party confused about the law is prohibited from having such confusion serve as a reasonable explanation unless through a fleeting lucid moment or jurisprudential epiphany, the party suddenly realizes its mistake or confusion. Such a requirement would nearly eliminate "mistake" from those excuses which this court has repeatedly held suffice as reasonable explanation. Id.