(Tex.2001). Although negligent damage to personal property is usually measured by the diminishmént in the property’s fair market value attributable to the negligently-inflicted damage, different factual situations may dictate the application of a different valuation of the damage to the property. See Pasadena State Bank v. Isaac, 149 Tex. 47, 50, 228 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.1950); Celanese Ltd., 75 S.W.3d at 598. For example, the personal property might be totally destroyed or may have no fair market value, requiring application of a fair-market-value-at-time-of-destruction valuation, replacement valuation, or repair valuation. Pasadena State Bank, 149 Tex. at 50, 228 S.W.2d at 128; see also Waples-Platter Co. v. Comm’l Standard Ins. Co., 156 Tex. 234, 236, 294 S.W.2d 375, 376-77 (1956) (<HOLDING>); Hartford Ins. Co. v. Jiminez, 814 S.W.2d 551,
holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable holding that depreciation could not be deducted from cost to repair building to its condition prior to fire under actual cash value policy holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion holding there cannot be a complete restoration of the property unless it can be said that there has been no diminution of value after repair of the car and adding that the appropriate and fair measure of damages could be achieved by awarding either the difference between the fair cash value of the car before and after the collision or similarly the cost of repairs plus any diminution in value