| The significant feature, however, which distinguishes | | | | Johns Gas. 337). |
| ARPI from other categories of insurance is that it | | | | The key factor distinguishing an ARPI is the reversal |
| covers the assured against physical loss caused by all | | | | of the burden of proof. |
| perils and risks. Of course, having covered the | | | | In a fire policy, the assured must prove that the loss |
| assured in the insuring clause, the policy will then | | | | is caused by fire. Under ARPI the assured needs only |
| continue to exclude cover for various risks in the | | | | to prove the loss has taken place, subject to it being |
| exclusion clauses, such as nuclear explosion, war, | | | | fortuitous (although this begs the question as to |
| flood and many more. Therefore, is the ARPI | | | | what is meant by fortuitous or inevitable as |
| different from a standard fire policy? After the | | | | discussed below), and the onus switches to the |
| application of numerous exclusions, the assured may | | | | insurer to prove that the exclusions apply. |
| only be left with cover for fire | | | | Therefore, it is essential that exclusion clauses are |
| Certainly in the United States an all risks policy is | | | | drafted in an ARPI with absolute clarity. As with all |
| considered as "different". There is a presumption that | | | | such rules there are exceptions, and it is common |
| it extends cover beyond the norm: "a special | | | | where a policy is to cover areas of potential conflict |
| insurance and extended to risks other than those | | | | to include a reverse burden of proof clause in the |
| usually contemplated" (Goix v. Knox [1800] NY 1 | | | | war exclusion clause. |