With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for its summary judgment, the party challenging the order must show that each of the independent arguments alleged in the motion is insufficient to support the order. Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 114 S.W.3d 680, 684 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003), modified, 199 S.W.3d 249 (Tex.2006); Williams v. City of Dallas, 53 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.). The reviewing court must affirm the summary judgment if any of the theories presented to the trial court each of contract if those damages are remote, contingent, speculative, or conjectural. City of Dallas v. Vills. of Forest Hills, L.P., Phase I, 931 S.W.2d 601, 605 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1996, no writ); see also Westech Eng’g, Inc. v. Clearwater Constructors, Inc., 835 S.W.2d 190, 205 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, no writ) (<HOLDING>); A.B.F. Freight Sys., Inc. v. Austrian Import

A: holding that plaintiffs consequential damages were too speculative because no evidence connected damages to defendants breach of contract
B: holding that government claim seeking incidental and consequential damages for plaintiffs alleged breach of contract did not require certification
C: holding that consequential damages are not to be considered
D: holding that provision barring recovery of consequential damages did not necessarily bar all loss of use damages but damages for loss of use of money were consequential
A.