Electric's free-standing argument (not asserted in connection with any issue) that a distinction exists in this case between proof that AHC's smoke-damaged inventory had a post-fire market value of $0 and proof that AHC’s smoke-damaged inventory had "no [post-fire] ascertainable market.” 26 . In one' sentence. Wise Electric also challenges Maddox’s testimony that the post-fire market value of AHC’s inventory was $0, Because Moore — an expert with a background similar to Maddox’s — testified without objection that there was no post-fire market for AHC’s inventory of hats, if. the trial court did somehow err by permitting Maddox to testify that AHC’s inventory1 had a post-fire market value of $0, any such error was harmless. See Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226, 230 (Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>); McKinney v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 772
holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial holding any error in admitting eye witness testimony was harmless because it was cumulative to other overwhelming evidence that established defendants guilt holding any error in admitting testimony of witness describing chemical pump was harmless because it was cumulative of admit  ted exhibit displaying pump and trial testimony of other witness about pumps function