How does the court assign the burden of proof when a property policy does not clearly state whether it is an all risks or named perils policy?  The court faced such a policy in Royale Green Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., No. 07-21404, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24349 (S.D. Fla. March 24, 2009).

   After Hurricane Wilma caused roof and interior damage to Royale's condominium buildings, it sought coverage from Aspen.  When coverage was denied, Royale sued.  Royale sought a declaration that the policy was an all risks policy.  Recall that if the policy is deemed an all risks policy, the insured must only prove that the damage occurred while the policy was in effect.  The burden then shifts to the insurer to demonstrate that the loss arose from a cause that is excluded under the policy.  Under a named perils policy, however, the insured carries the burden of proving that the damage occurred by a covered cause.

    The policy provision at issue read,

    We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.

Plaintiff argued that the word "any" meant any peril, making the policy all risks.  The court disagreed.  The clause meant Aspen would insure when the property damage was due to a specifically and explicitly named cause of loss, covered by the policy.  The Covered Cause of Loss section of the policy listed eleven discrete covered perils, with various exceptions, detailing conditions of coverage.  Consequently, the policy was a named perils policy and Royale had the burden of proving the losses suffered were due to a peril covered by the policy.