Interconex, Inc. v. Ugarov, No. 01-05-00524-CV, 2006 WL 2506562, at *8, — S.W.3d -,- (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 31, 2006, no pet. h.). Here, two arbitration agreements exist between Appellants and the Loudermilks — the arbitration agreement in the warranty and the even broader arbitration agreement in the sales contract. Thus, we must determine whether the Loudermilks’ claims are within the scope of those agreements. We will not find error by the trial court and are required to uphold the trial court’s ruling if it is proper on any grounds. See Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex.1998) (requiring us to uphold trial court’s evidentiary ruling if it is proper on any grounds); Harwell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 896 S.W.2d 170, 173 (Tex.1995) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Duncan Land & Exploration, Inc., No.
holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious holding that if a trial court reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record holding summary judgment must be upheld if it is proper on any grounds holding that summary judgment must be affirmed where multiple grounds are asserted and the appellant does not attack all grounds on appeal holding that on appeal a summary judgment ruling will be upheld if it can be sustained on any grounds even if the trial court gave an incorrect reason for its ruling