does not preclude those specific claims. Equistar Chemicals, 240 S.W.3d at 867. The cases Enterprise relies on in support of its economic loss rule argument are all distinguishable, based on the fact they did not involve physical damage to property separate from the property at issue in the contract; therefore, they do not control the circumstances presented here. See Sterling Chems., Inc. v. Texaco Inc., 259 S.W.3d 793, 796 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment on claims for economic losses resulting from business interruptions; however, trial court denied summary judgment motion on property damage claim and that claim was not at issue on appeal); Hou-Tex, Inc. v. Landmark Graphics, 26 S.W.3d 103, 107 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Clems Ye Olde Homestead Farms LTD v. Briscoe,
recognizing fraud in the inducement claims independent of contract claims without discussion of economic loss rule holding economic loss rule did not bar recovery of tort damages on statutory fraud claim based upon fraudulent inducement holding that economic loss rule precluded the plaintiffs tort claims because they only alleged injuries to the subject of the contract itself holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims holding that subject to certain exceptions the economic loss rule bars recovery in tort for economic damages arising out of matters governed by contract