VI. Conclusion Trinity’s liability for direct and accidental loss to Carlton’s vehicle is capped at the “[ajmount necessary to repair or replace the property with other of like kind and quality.” Therefore, Trinity is not liable, as a matter of law, for the “inherent diminished value” to Carlton’s automobile. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Trinity or in denying Carlton’s motion for partial summary judgment. Accordingly, we overrule Carlton’s second and fifth issues. Having determined that the trial court properly granted summary judgment for Trinity on the ground of that Trinity is not hable for “inherent diminished value,” we do not reach the remainder of Carlton’s appellate issues. See Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex.1995) (<HOLDING>). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
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 this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds holding that summary judgment must be affirmed where multiple grounds are asserted and the appellant does not attack all grounds on appeal recognizing that this court may affirm summary judgment on grounds other than those relied upon by the motion justice holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion