Author Topic: All Risks Vs Named Perils  (Read 3673 times)

Offline vistar

  • Baron
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,662
All Risks Vs Named Perils
« on: April 07, 2012, 10:07:21 PM »
For those half passed six agent, broker, insurer, adjuster etc out there.

Please read and bark up.

The ‘All Risk’ basis provides coverage  for sudden and accidental physical loss or damage to the property insured unless caused by an excluded peril.

The main differences between ‘Named Perils’ or ‘All Risk’ policies is that in an `All Risks’ contract the onus of proof is reversed.

In a named perils contract the insured must prove that the loss was caused by one of the perils covered. In ‘All Risk’, the insured needs merely to provide evidence that their property suffered loss or damage; it is then up to the company to prove that the claim did not arise from an excluded peril.

The onus of proof is an additional reason for absolute clarity in the exclusions of an ‘All Risk’ policy.