Jonathan O. Aihie, of the Miami office, obtained summary judgment where Plaintiff contended that he suffered a covered loss stemming from a tornado, even though there was no weather evidence of a tornado on the date of loss. Jonathan requested a re-inspection with an engineering expert to determine the cause and origin of the claimed damages. The expert determined that the damage was long-term and not from a sudden weather event. Jonathan then requested the plaintiff’s deposition to see if he could obtain helpful testimony to set the case up for a dispositive motion. Plaintiff could not refute the engineer’s findings. The insured’s public adjuster refused to appear for his deposition twice. Jonathan moved to strike the PA for failing to appear at his deposition and the court granted the motion to strike. Jonathan then drafted a motion for summary judgment based on plaintiffs’ testimony and the expert’s opinion, showing that the claimed damage was excluded under the policy because it was long term. Plaintiff retained a roofer and relied on the roofer’s affidavit at the summary judgment hearing. Jonathan was able to discredit the roofer’s affidavit because the roofer was not qualified and did not render an opinion about the causation and duration of the damages. The court granted the motion for summary, after our client had served a $1,500 proposal for settlement.