A cheaper property policy can come with a more demanding coverage structure. Lévesque c. Aviva Compagnie d'assurance générale, 2024 QCCS 1570, illustrates the difference between insurance against specified perils and an all risk form.
The insured's cottage collapsed in 2019. Aviva investigated and concluded that accumulated snow and ice caused the structural failure. The policy insured only specified causes of loss, and snow load was not one of the listed perils that would respond in these circumstances.
The insured challenged the denial and advanced other possible causes that she said could bring the loss within the policy.
The Court dismissed the claim. Under a specified perils policy, the insured bears the burden of proving that a covered peril caused the loss. It is not enough to prove that physical damage occurred and then require the insurer to establish an exclusion. That burden structure is one of the major practical differences between specified perils and broader all risk coverage.
The expert evidence supported vertical loading from snow and ice rather than the insured's theories involving a listed peril such as wind or a fallen tree. Because the insured did not prove a covered cause, the policy did not respond.
The case matters at the buying stage as much as it does at the claims stage. A specified perils form can cost less because it insures a narrower list of events. The tradeoff only becomes visible when a serious loss arises from a cause that is outside that list or difficult to prove.
For brokers and policyholders, the decision is a reminder to discuss that difference plainly. The question is not simply whether the property is insured. It is what causes of loss the contract actually covers and who will carry the burden of proving that the loss falls within those causes.
Aviva's denial was upheld and the property claim was dismissed.