All-Risk vs. Named-Peril Policy
An all-risk (open-perils) policy covers every cause of loss except those specifically excluded, while a named-peril policy covers only the specific causes of loss it lists.
The structural difference shifts the burden of proof. Under an all-risk policy, the policyholder generally need only show that a fortuitous loss occurred and that it falls within the property covered; the insurer then bears the burden of proving the loss falls within a specific policy exclusion to deny coverage. Under a named-peril policy, the burden runs the other way — the policyholder must affirmatively show the loss was caused by one of the specifically enumerated covered perils, such as fire, windstorm, or theft.
Many modern property policies are hybrids: broad, open-perils coverage on the dwelling or building, paired with named-peril coverage on personal property or other categories, meaning a single policy can require different proof depending on what was damaged. Coverage disputes often turn on correctly characterizing which form applies to the specific property at issue and, for all-risk policies, on which party bears the burden for a given exclusion.
Because the burden allocation is doctrinally significant, Juricratic's evidence framework treats an all-risk versus named-peril classification as an input that changes which side's burden dial the simulation applies — the platform does not blur this distinction even when a user is simply exploring a generic property-loss scenario.
How it actually shows up
Coverage counsel identify the applicable policy form early because it determines who must prove what: under an all-risk policy the policyholder's burden is comparatively light and the insurer must locate and prove an applicable exclusion, while under a named-peril policy the policyholder must affirmatively establish the loss fits within one of the enumerated perils.
- Who has the burden of proof under an all-risk policy?
- The policyholder generally must show a covered fortuitous loss occurred; the insurer then bears the burden of proving any exclusion applies to defeat coverage.
- Are all-risk policies more expensive than named-peril policies?
- Generally yes, because they cover a broader range of causes of loss by default, though the actual premium depends on the specific risk, property, and insurer.
- Can one policy combine both structures?
- Yes, it is common for a policy to provide open-perils coverage on the dwelling and named-peril coverage on personal property or other specific categories within the same policy.
This page is an educational explainer, not legal advice, and creates no attorney–client relationship. Juricratic is a simulation engine: every probability-like figure is a dial you set, not a calibrated prediction. Verify every rule, deadline, and figure against the authorities and orders that govern your matter.
Turn the concept into a modeled matter.
Juricratic makes every one of these ideas a live dial: model your case as a solvable game, then watch the optimal line and the settlement window move as the assumptions do.
Request access →