Key takeaways
- An HO-3 already covers your building on an open-perils basis. Upgrading to an HO-5 does not improve the protection on the house.
- The change is confined to Coverage C: contents move from named perils to open perils, which reverses the burden of proof on a contents claim.
- Whether contents pay replacement cost or actual cash value is set separately from the form letter. Getting the form and missing this is a common own goal.
- Open perils does not lift category sub-limits on jewelry, cash or firearms — scheduling those items does.
- Wisconsin's regulator says the HO-5 is not often sold today, while noting many insurers offer similar policies — so treat it as something to ask about.
Not sure which form you are on, or what it covers? A licensed agent can read your declarations page with you.
Call [PENDING][PENDING]. Calls are answered by [PENDING], a licensed insurance agency (NPN [PENDING]). HomeCoverDesk is not affiliated with any insurer. Calls may be recorded or monitored for quality and training purposes. Our partner does not offer every insurer or every product available in your state.The difference is about your belongings, not your house
This is the part that gets lost, and it changes how the decision should feel.
On an HO-3 — the form most homeowners already hold — the building is already covered on an open-perils basis. Wisconsin's insurance regulator describes it as insuring the dwelling and detached structures “against loss or damage from any peril except for the ones specifically listed in the policy as being excluded”. That is as good as it gets structurally. An HO-5 does not improve it.
What an HO-5 changes is Coverage C. On an HO-3, your belongings are covered on a named-peril basis: the loss has to have been caused by something on a list. On an HO-5, NAIC's description is “open perils for both dwelling and personal property” — so contents are covered unless the cause is excluded.
So the upgrade is narrower than it sounds, and also more interesting than it sounds. It is not more protection for the house. It is a different burden of proof on the contents.
| HO-3 (Special Form) | HO-5 (Comprehensive Form) | |
|---|---|---|
| The dwelling (Coverage A) | Open perils. Covered against “any peril except for the ones specifically listed in the policy as being excluded” | Open perils. No change — Wisconsin's guide says the HO-5 “has an even shorter list of exclusions”, but both forms are open-perils on the building |
| Detached structures (Coverage B) | Open perils, same as the dwelling | Open perils |
| Your belongings (Coverage C) | Named perils. Follows the HO-2 list — if the cause is not on the list, it is not covered | Open perils. NAIC: “open perils for both dwelling and personal property”. This is the difference |
| Who has to prove what, on a contents claim | You show the loss was caused by a listed peril | The insurer shows the cause falls within an exclusion |
| Liability and medical payments | Unchanged | Unchanged |
| Loss settlement basis | A separate question entirely — replacement cost or actual cash value is set by the policy, not by the form letter | Same. Do not assume an HO-5 pays replacement cost on contents; check |
Why the burden of proof is the real product
Named perils and open perils are not two lengths of the same list. They point the argument in opposite directions.
Under a named-peril form, a contents claim starts with you establishing that the cause is on the list. If nothing on the list explains what happened, there is nothing to argue about. Under an open-perils form, the claim starts from the other end: it is covered unless the insurer can place the cause inside an exclusion.
That distinction is invisible until something breaks in an ordinary way. A guitar knocked off a stand, a rug ruined by a spill, a laptop that goes into a bath — none of those has a named peril behind it. They are not excluded on an HO-3; they are simply not listed, which produces the same outcome by a different route.
| Group | Perils |
|---|---|
| Fire and weather | Fire, lightning, windstorm, hail, weight of ice, snow or sleet |
| Sudden events | Explosion, smoke, damage from vehicles, damage from aircraft, falling objects |
| Human causes | Theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, riot, civil commotion |
| Water and systems | Freezing of plumbing, heating or air conditioning systems; accidental discharge of water or steam from domestic appliances; rupture of a steam or hot water heating system |
| Also on the list, and routinely left off summaries | Sudden and accidental damage from artificially generated electrical current — a power surge — and volcanic eruption. But read the sentence that follows the peril heading, because it removes most of what people want it for: “This peril does not include loss to tubes, transistors, electronic components or circuitry that is a part of appliances, fixtures, computers, home entertainment units or other types of electronic apparatus.” Our reading of what that leaves behind: a surge that damages wiring or a motor is covered; the electronics inside the television are carved out of it. An earlier version of this table omitted the peril entirely, then a correction added it and used a fried television as the example — which is precisely the excluded case. We replaced an error with its mirror image |
| Not perils at all — do not read them here | Collapse, glass breakage and removal of property appear in most summaries of this list, including an earlier version of ours. In the form they are Additional Coverages under Section I — Property Coverages, each with its own narrower trigger. Glass coverage, for one, is about glass that is part of a covered building, not a glass object of yours. Reading them as contents perils leads to a claim on a basis the form does not provide |
| What is not on it | Anything not on the list above. The everyday examples people are surprised by are spills and stains, a dropped or knocked-over item, and accidental damage with no listed cause — the sort of loss that has no story beyond “it broke”. Mysterious disappearance too: a ring that is simply lost is not a theft |
Wondering whether the upgrade is worth it on your policy? A licensed agent can price it against what you actually own.
Call [PENDING][PENDING]. Calls are answered by [PENDING], a licensed insurance agency (NPN [PENDING]). HomeCoverDesk is not affiliated with any insurer. Calls may be recorded or monitored for quality and training purposes. Our partner does not offer every insurer or every product available in your state.What the form letter does not tell you
Three things travel independently of the form, and confusing them with it is the most common mistake on this subject.
Replacement cost versus actual cash value on contents. This is set by the policy's loss settlement terms, not by the form letter. An HO-5 that pays actual cash value on belongings can settle a contents claim for less than an HO-3 with replacement cost contents. Check the settlement basis separately.
Sub-limits on categories — and the distinction that costs people money. Figures below are quoted from the published specimen of HO 00 03 05 11, Section I Property Coverages C.3. There are two kinds of special limit in that section and they behave completely differently. Some are general caps, published in that form as: “$200 on money, bank notes, bullion…” applies however the money is lost. But the ones people actually care about are theft-only, published there as: “$1,500 for loss by theft of jewelry, watches, furs, precious and semiprecious stones”, “$2,500 for loss by theft of firearms…”, “$2,500 for loss by theft of silverware…”.
Those figures are from the 2011 edition, and ISO raised them. The 2022 revision, HO 00 03 03 22, sets the same three limits, published in that form as “$300 on money, bank notes, bullion…”, “$2,000 for loss by theft of jewelry, watches, furs, precious and semiprecious stones” and “$3,000 for loss by theft of firearms and related equipment”. Which set applies to you is decided by the edition printed on your own form, not by which is newer — editions are adopted state by state and carrier by carrier, and policies written on the older form are still in force. Look for the form number and edition date on your policy, usually bottom-left of the first page and in the format “HO 00 03” followed by four digits. The distinction that matters survives the rewrite: the 2022 wording keeps “for loss by theft of” on the jewelry and firearms limits, so those are still theft-only in the newer edition too.
Scheduling an item is still the remedy for the theft limit, and Wisconsin's guide points at it — valuables may need “a special addition to your homeowners policy, such as a personal property floater”. Moving to an HO-5 does not raise the figure published in the form.
Exclusions. Wisconsin's guide says flood and surface water damage is usually excluded, and that damage from earth movement is not covered, without distinguishing between forms. That those exclusions apply on an HO-5 as well as an HO-3 is our reading rather than something either regulator states, and the same goes for wear, deterioration and mechanical breakdown. Your policy's own exclusions list is what settles it.
| Question | Why it decides something |
|---|---|
| What are your contents actually worth? | The upgrade only reaches Coverage C. If your belongings are modest, you are buying a better burden of proof over a small limit |
| Do you hold things that break in unlisted ways? | Instruments, art, electronics, rugs, cameras. These are the items whose typical losses have no named peril behind them |
| What is the actual price difference? | Not the percentage — the dollars, on your quote. It is often smaller than people assume and occasionally larger |
| Would scheduling specific items do the job instead? | Scheduling individual valuables is a different mechanism that also removes sub-limits, which an HO-5 by itself does not |
| Is it even offered to you? | Wisconsin's regulator says the HO-5 is not often sold today, while adding that many insurers offer similar policies. Availability varies, and it is not always on the table |
| Is the settlement basis right? | Replacement cost versus actual cash value on contents is set separately from the form. Getting the form and missing this is a common own goal |
A counter-fact worth knowing before you go looking
Most comparisons of these two forms are written as though the HO-5 is a readily available premium option that any homeowner can simply ask for. That is not universally the case, and we would rather show you a regulator's view than leave it out because it is inconvenient.
Wisconsin's Consumer's Guide to Homeowners Insurance, PI-015, says the HO-5 is “not often sold today, but you could have one from earlier years”. It then adds, in the very next sentence, “Not all insurers offer HO-5, but many offer similar policies” — which softens the point considerably. We quote it because leaving it out would make our case stronger than the source makes it.
One caution about that guide, which applies to us as much as to anyone else citing it. PI-015 carries a 07/2026 revision code, but its worked example still insures a dwelling for $60,000. The revision code is real; it does not establish that every sentence inside was rewritten, and “not often sold today” may be carried forward from an earlier edition. We cannot tell, and neither can anyone else quoting it.
The practical implication: treat the HO-5 as something to ask about rather than something you are entitled to be offered.
| Form | What it is |
|---|---|
| HO-1 | Basic form. NAIC describes it as covering named perils such as fire, lightning, windstorm and theft, with HO-2 adding further named perils. Seldom offered now — our reading |
| HO-2 | Broad form. Named perils on both the building and contents |
| HO-3 | Special form. Open perils on the building, named perils on contents. The form most homeowners hold — our reading |
| HO-4 | Renters. Contents and liability, no building |
| HO-5 | Comprehensive form. Open perils on both |
| HO-6 | Condominium unit owners |
| HO-8 | Wisconsin's guide calls it “slightly more restrictive than other homeowner policies for owner-occupants”, and says it is for homes that do not meet all the requirements applicable to other homeowner policies. It is commonly reached for where rebuild cost far exceeds market value — our reading, not the guide's |
How to think about it
We do not rate or rank products and we have not seen your policy, your contents or your quote. What we can do is set out what the choice actually turns on, given that the difference is confined to Coverage C.
Corrections to this page (4)
We publish these rather than editing quietly. Our corrections policy explains how we handle errors.
- — We named “HO 05 24, Special Personal Property Coverage” as the modern endorsement that converts an HO-3's contents to open perils, and called it the direct substitute for an HO-5. HO 05 24 is used with the tenants form HO 00 04 and cannot be attached to an HO-3. The claim carried no source; it was written from memory. The form number has been removed rather than replaced with another we cannot cite.
- — We added the artificially-generated-electrical-current peril to the named-perils table and illustrated it with a fried television. The peril's second sentence excludes loss to “tubes, transistors, electronic components or circuitry that is a part of appliances, fixtures, computers, home entertainment units or other types of electronic apparatus” — so the television is the excluded case. We had replaced one error with its mirror image.
- — We quoted Wisconsin's guide as saying the HO-5 is “not commonly sold today”. It says “not often”, and we omitted its next sentence, that many insurers offer similar policies, which softens the point.
- — We attributed Wisconsin's phrase about a shorter list of exclusions to NAIC.
Methodology and sources
The form structures are taken from the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance's Consumer's Guide to Homeowners Insurance, PI-015, revision 07/2026, and from NAIC's homeowners market data call form definitions. We use regulator descriptions rather than the underlying industry forms because those forms are copyrighted, individual carriers file their own variations, and the only wording that governs your claim is the wording in your own policy.
For the same reason we describe the named-peril list by group rather than reproducing policy language, and say plainly that carrier wording varies. Anyone making a decision on the strength of this page should confirm the specifics against their own document.
We include Wisconsin's statement that the HO-5 is not often sold today because it cuts against the way this comparison is normally written, including by pages that would like you to upgrade — and we quote the sentence that follows it, which softens it, for the same reason.
Correction, 23 August 2026. This page first quoted that sentence as “not commonly sold today”; the guide says “not often”. It omitted the following sentence about many insurers offering similar policies. And it attributed Wisconsin's phrase about a shorter list of exclusions to NAIC. All three are fixed above. Separately, several claims that were our own inference — that flood and earth movement are excluded on both forms, that open perils does not lift a category sub-limit, that HO-1 is rarely written — are now marked as ours rather than sitting in tables sourced to regulators.
We do not recommend either form. We do not rate, rank or compare insurance products anywhere on this site, and the choice here turns on the value of your contents and the actual price difference on your quote — neither of which we can see. Nothing here is advice about your policy. If you find an error, our corrections policy explains how we handle it.
Frequently asked questions
Is an HO-5 better than an HO-3?
It is broader in one specific place, and we do not rank products. Both forms cover the building on an open-perils basis, so an HO-5 does not improve the protection on your house. What it changes is personal property: contents move from named perils to open perils. Whether that is worth the difference in premium depends on what your belongings are worth and what the difference actually is on your quote.
What does named perils actually mean for my contents?
It means a contents loss is covered only if its cause appears on the policy's list — fire, lightning, windstorm, hail, theft, explosion, smoke, vehicle and aircraft damage, vandalism, riot, freezing of plumbing, accidental water discharge from appliances, falling objects, weight of ice or snow, rupture of a heating system, sudden and accidental damage from artificially generated electrical current and volcanic eruption. Glass breakage and collapse are not on it — they are Additional Coverages with their own narrower triggers, and an earlier version of this answer listed them here while the table three screens up said not to. Ordinary accidental damage with no listed cause is not on that list.
Does an HO-5 cover flood or earthquake?
Our reading is no, on both forms. Wisconsin's guide says flood and surface water damage is usually excluded and that earth movement is not covered, though it does not distinguish between forms, so the form-specific part is ours. Open perils means covered unless excluded, and these are exclusions. Flood is a separate market entirely, and earthquake coverage is generally a separate policy or endorsement where it is available at all.
Will an HO-5 raise the limit on my jewelry?
Our reading is no, and it is a common and expensive assumption. Category sub-limits on jewelry, cash, firearms, silverware and business property are set separately from the perils basis, so moving to open perils does not lift one. Neither regulator we cite states that directly, so check your policy. Scheduling the individual items is the mechanism that does, and it usually also broadens the perils on those specific items.
How do I find out which form I have?
It is on your declarations page, usually near the top, printed as a form number and often as a name such as Special Form or Comprehensive Form. If you cannot see it, your agent can tell you in a sentence. It is worth checking rather than assuming, because HO-3 is the common default and people who believe they upgraded sometimes did not.
Is the HO-5 widely available?
Not everywhere, and not from all insurers. Wisconsin's insurance regulator says the HO-5 is not often sold today, though it adds that many insurers offer similar policies. That is one state describing its own market, and we cannot establish when that sentence was written. It is still worth asking rather than assuming the HO-5 is a simple upgrade you can request. Where it is not offered, ask about the special personal property coverage endorsement — Wisconsin's guide says it “can be added to extend HO-3 to provide “comprehensive” coverage on unscheduled personal property”, which is the same result by another route. Scheduling individual valuables is a narrower tool and does not cover the rest of your belongings.