The trial court properly granted summary judgment against the plaintiff insureds who sought coverage under their named peril property insurance policy for loss of their frozen embryos due to a failure of the refrigeration unit of the embryo storage company. The insureds could not prove that the embryos had suffered physical damage. The storage company refused to say, and the insureds’ fertility doctor merely opined that without assurance that the embryos had not been adversely affected, they could not safely be used. Also, there was no admissible evidence to show that any damage to the embryos was caused by one of the named perils against which the policy protected. Plaintiffs claimed the loss was due to covered “explosion” but their only evidence regarding that issue was an expert deposition given in a different case in Colorado. The deposition was not admissible both because it was hearsay (not given under penalty of perjury under California law) and because it was by an undisclosed expert. Additionally, the expert appeared to testify that the failure was due to an implosion, not an explosion.