There are two kinds of first-party property coverages with two distinct sets of burdens. A case decided earlier this year in New York illustrates the similarities and the differences. That case involved both an "all risks" coverage under one part of the policy and a "named perils" coverage under another. Fabozzi v. Lexington Insurance Co., 2014 WL 2440475 (E.D.N.Y. May 30, 2014).
In its interpretation of the "named perils" coverage invoked in the case at bar, the Court said something about the burdens of persuasion and proof that would never be accurate about "all risks" coverage -- although some Courts have said similar things recently in other cases:
The Court finds that Plaintiffs bear the burden of persuasion at trial to prove that a collapse occurred and that the collapse was caused by a covered peril.
Fabozzi v. Lexington Insurance Co., 2014 WL 2440475 *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 30, 2014). This is an issue that bears further exploration. See also Dennis J. Wall, "Introduction and Interpretation" to "Property Insurance Coverage Issues: Exclusions," § 7:1 in John K. DiMugno, Steven Plitt and Dennis J. Wall, Catastrophe Claims: Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters (Thomson Reuters Westlaw May, 2014 Ed.; November, 2014 Ed. in process).
To be continued ....