Does an "All-Risk" Policy Really Cover All Risks?

Many homeowners, like me, purchase some sort of insurance for their property: coverage for wind/hurricane, homeowner’s and flood. Typically, a homeowner will expect that a flood insurance policy provides coverage for a flood, a wind/hurricane policy provides coverage for a hurricane or other wind damage, and a homeowner’s policy provides coverage for damages resulting from other “sudden” losses or “accidents” such as fire, theft and water damage resulting from something like a burst pipe. It would seem to logically follow, then, that if a homeowner purchases an “All Risk” policy, then all of the risks that a homeowner could insure against would be covered by that policy. That, however, is not usually the case.

Policyholders are sometimes faced with the option of purchasing an “All Risk” insurance policy that would, by its name, suggest that it covers all risks. In his book Delay Deny Defend, author, professor and expert Jay M. Feinman writes about how an “All Risk” insurance policy does not necessarily cover all risks:

In the insurance business, all risks does not mean all risks, the presence of a hurricane deductible does not mean that damage caused by a hurricane above the deductible amount is covered, and even if damage is caused by a risk covered by the policy, it may not be covered. Under an all-risk policy an insurance company does not cover damage from any source. In its underwriting, the company determines that risks of a certain kind are too great to be covered under the standard premium, or perhaps to be covered at all, so it excludes them from coverage with special provisions.

As an example, Mr. Feinman uses a standard homeowner’s insurance policy, commonly referred to as the HO-3. The HO-3 usually has nine different types of exclusion such as the following:

  • Damage caused by earth movement;
  • Power failure;
  • War;
  • Nuclear Hazard;
  • Loss caused by freezing of a plumbing system;
  • Loss caused by settling;
  • Loss caused by smog; and/or
  • Loss caused by birds, vermin, rodents or insects.

Naturally, an insurance policy that is called an “All Risk” policy but does not actually cover all risks because exclusions preclude coverage for many different types of risks might be at odds with a homeowner’s expectation of coverage. Such a name might be considered by some to be misleading. A policyholder might think this misrepresentation – an “all Risk” policy that does not cover all risks -- could be grounds for a bad faith claim against the insurer. However, as Mr. Feinman explains in his book, courts have allowed insurance companies to sell “All Risk” policies that do not cover all risks under one condition:

What the insurance company gives it can only take away if it does so specifically and unambiguously in the policy. This is an application of the ancient maxim of interpretation know in lawyer’s Latin as contra proferentem, interpreting a documents “against the one who proffers” it: Because the drafter of a document is in the best position to write it in a way that says what it means, he should suffer the consequences if it is not clear. Thus “all risks” includes all risks except to the extent that certain risks have been specifically excluded.

For homeowners shopping for the right policy for their property, it is important to keep in mind that although an “All Risk” policy grants broad coverage, the exclusions take away some of that coverage. It is imperative for homeowners review the proposed policy and all of its exclusions and endorsements so that the homeowner has a fair understanding of what is covered and what is not covered. This might help fend off unpleasant surprises if the homeowner suffers a loss that is not covered.

For more of Mr. Feinman’s evaluation of “All Risk” policies and other important topics that play an important role in today’s insurance industry, please refer to his book Delay Deny Defend.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/admin/trackback/239583
Comments (6) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
E.J.Rega - February 11, 2011 3:53 PM

I was forced to get a new H.O. policy when good ole Liberty Muts non-renewed me after tons of years, They feared a Hurricane was going to hit my zip code.
I found a Carrier that would take my SPP items, that others wouldn't take or write.

The policy came with a special endorsement attached that removed the Appraisal Clause however offered Mediation. Guess thats what it comes down to when South Floridians are displaced by their famous Carrier.

I was glad to get the coverage just because their rate on the SPPE was Fair. You get a HO3 accompanied by the Take-Away endorsements.. Unbelievable. I'm not worried, however, I wonder how the average homeowner feels when he sees all the endorsments that limit or take away coverage.

Ed Rega

Vivian Persand - February 11, 2011 4:44 PM

Hi Ed - Thank you for taking a few minutes to read and post.

Gene Angelotti - February 13, 2011 11:47 AM

This is an excellent topic. Years ago we referred to HO-3 policies as all risk and it caused a problem. We started reffering to these policies as all peril policies.

In my opinion the simplest way to describe an all peril policy is: it coverers any loss that is fortuitous in nature (meaning: happening by accident or chance) subject to the exclusions in the policy.

Vivian Persand - February 14, 2011 8:47 AM

Hi Gene and thank you! I am glad you enjoyed Friday's post. I have to give Mr. Feinman the credit, though, for evaluating the issue as clearly and thoroughly as he did in his book.

Tim O'Brien - February 14, 2011 4:40 PM

I can't recall the last time a personal insurance professional referred to an HO-3, HO-5 or similar as being "All Risk" or "All Peril" policy forms. It is well understood in our industry that the use of the word "All" invites the reactions you expressed. To correct this, most personal insurance professionals I know have LONG ago (more than 10 years) adopted the ISO description "Open Perils" to correct the alleged confusion.

I have a question for those who represent they thought it entirely reasonable to take a literal interpretation when hearing / seeing "All Risk" coverage was being provided: using such logic, would they also presume that one should be covered by their policy if they chose to burn their own house down? After all, shouldn't arson also be a risk that should be construed as covered by a policy referred to as "All Risk"? Of course not....

Taking the term "All Risk" literally is patently illogical and wrong minded, and in my view, usually a ploy to avoid clearly defined exclusions. Of course, it was also dumb for the industry to have not foreseen that others would take creative license with such a glib label. Let's all lose this out-dated term, and adopt OPEN PERILS, as has been used for over 10 years.

KAY HORN - March 14, 2011 12:26 PM

LAST YEAR WE HAD DAMAGE TO OUR ROOF. OUR INSURANCE COMPANY PAID FOR MOST OF THE ROOF.AT THE TIME THEY ALSO HAD TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO OUR CEILING IN KITCHEN DO TO WATER. OUR PROBLEM IS NOW OUR CEILINGS IN THE LIVING ROOM AND DINNING ROOM ARE SWOOPING.

WE ARE ELDERLY AND WERE NOT ABLE TO SEE.

IF THERE WAS DAMAGE TO ATTIC. ARE WE COVERED IN ANY WAY FOR THIS PROBLEM? THANK YOU FOR ANY HELP ,WE ARE ON A FIXED INCOME AND NEED HELP.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.