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 on both forms — but not identical. Wisconsin's guide says the HO-5 “has an even shorter list of exclusions”. On an open-perils form the exclusion list is the coverage, so a shorter list is more coverage. How much more we cannot tell you — Wisconsin does not say which exclusions differ, and we have not read an HO-5 form. The big change is on Coverage C, not here — but “no change” would be the wrong words for this row |
| 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 | Accidental discharge of water or steam from domestic appliances; rupture of a steam or hot water heating system. And freezing — but read the condition, because summaries drop it and it is the whole peril. On the 2011 form the peril is “freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or of a household appliance, but only if you have used reasonable care to: (1) Maintain heat in the building; or (2) Shut off the water supply and drain all systems and appliances of water.” On the 1991 edition it is worse for you: the peril “does not include loss on the ‘residence premises’ while the dwelling is unoccupied, unless you have used reasonable care to” do the same two things. Non-occupancy without that care switches it off on that edition — if you did maintain heat or drain the system, the peril still responds. Our reading of the difference: on the 2011 form you must establish that you took the care; on the 1991 form non-occupancy switches the peril off unless you did. Note also that the peril covers an automatic fire protective sprinkler system or a household appliance, which most summaries drop — a frozen washing-machine supply line is on the list |
| 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. A fried television is the example everyone reaches for, and it is precisely the excluded case. |
| Not perils at all — do not read them here | Collapse, glass breakage and removal of property appear in most summaries of this list. 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 |
Dropped, denied, or holding a notice you do not understand? Call us. We will read the letter with you, tell you which clock you are on and what your state requires your insurer to do — then put you in touch with a licensed agent who can quote you and write the policy.
Call (866) 754-7910Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm ET (6am to 2pm PT). We are not an insurance agency and we do not sell policies. Call and we will help you make sense of what you have been sent — then put you in touch with a licensed agent — the one person who can actually quote you and write a policy. We hold no insurance license, so we cannot quote you, recommend an insurer, or advise you on your own policy.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” and “$2,500 for loss by theft of firearms and related equipment”. Silverware carries a theft-only limit in the same section; we are not printing a figure for it because we have not read that sub-paragraph in the specimen ourselves. If you own silverware, C.3 of your own form is the place to look.
Those figures are from the 2011 edition, and ISO raised them. The 2022 revision, HO 00 03 03 22, sets the three limits quoted above, 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. And there are more than two editions in circulation. The 04 91 edition is still found on older policies and differs materially from both of the above on at least one provision this page covers — see the freezing peril in the contents table, where the 1991 wording removes the peril while the dwelling is unoccupied unless you maintained heat or drained the system. 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 (15)
We publish these rather than editing quietly. Our corrections policy explains how we handle errors.
- — A flag box said jewelry, firearms and silverware do not carry their own caps. They do — the page quotes those caps three lines above. The point we were making is what each cap REACHES: the cash limit applies to any loss, while those three are theft limits and cap no fire loss at all. Compressed into a flat denial, it told a reader with a stolen ring that no sub-limit applied to them, which is the opposite of the mistake the box exists to prevent.
- — An FAQ said an HO-5 does not improve the protection on your house. We retracted that on 27 August: on an open-perils form the exclusion list IS the coverage, and Wisconsin's regulator describes the HO-5 as carrying a shorter one. The correction reached the Coverage A table cell and the correction log and not the FAQ, which is the block a reader weighing the upgrade actually acts on.
- — The named-perils FAQ listed sudden and accidental damage from artificially generated electrical current with no carve-out. The form excludes loss to tubes, transistors, electronic components and circuitry inside appliances, computers and home entertainment equipment — which is to say the fried television, the case a reader has in mind. The limiter was in our registry and not in the answer.
- — We said non-occupancy alone switches the freezing peril off on the 1991 edition. Our own quotation of that edition conditions it: unoccupied AND without reasonable care to maintain heat or drain the system. A reader on a 1991-edition policy who did drain the system was told they had no coverage for a burst pipe.
- — We published the freezing peril without the condition that gates it. The contents table listed “Freezing of plumbing, heating or air conditioning systems” as a covered peril. On the 2011 form the peril is granted “but only if you have used reasonable care to: (1) Maintain heat in the building; or (2) Shut off the water supply and drain all systems and appliances of water”; on the 1991 edition it does not apply at all “while the dwelling is unoccupied” unless that same care was taken. A reader who left the house in winter, did not maintain heat, and came home to a burst pipe would have read this page and believed the loss was covered. Both editions are now quoted in the table and the FAQ. We had also dropped “automatic fire protective sprinkler system or of a household appliance” from the peril, which made it narrower than the form.
- — The Coverage A row said an HO-5 makes “No change” to the dwelling, in the same cell as Wisconsin's statement that the HO-5 has “an even shorter list of exclusions”. On an open-perils form the exclusion list is the coverage, so those cannot both be true. We do not know how much shorter — Wisconsin does not say — and we now say that instead of saying nothing changes.
- — Our methodology block said we use “regulator descriptions rather than the underlying industry forms” and describe the peril list “by group rather than reproducing policy language”. This page quotes the ISO forms directly in about a dozen places, from two editions, and links specimens of both. The methodology block is where a reader decides how much to trust a page; ours described a different page.
- — Our correction of 25 August replaced an unsourced claim about form HO 05 24 with a second unsourced claim — that it “is used with the tenants form HO 00 04, so it cannot be attached to an HO-3 at all” — inside a correction whose point was that the original carried no source. We have narrowed it to what we can stand behind: we could not verify that HO 05 24 is the endorsement Wisconsin describes.
- — We quoted a “$2,500 for loss by theft of silverware…” limit that appears in no quotation registry on this page, and then omitted silverware from the 2022 comparison two sentences later while calling it “the same three limits”. We have removed the unregistered figure rather than adding a second one we have not read.
- — The jewelry flag said a ring destroyed by fire is “paid up to your full contents limit”. Coverage C is a shared limit — in a house fire the ring competes with everything else that burned — and contents may settle at actual cash value. The narrow point, that a theft cap is not the ceiling on a fire loss, is unchanged; the promise around it was too broad.
- — Our edition guidance named two editions and told readers their own form decides which applies. The 04 91 edition is also still in circulation and differs materially on the freezing peril. An incomplete table presented as a lookup is worse than no table.
- — 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.
How we researched this
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 also quote the ISO forms directly, in about a dozen places — four special-limit provisions, a peril heading and its qualifying sentence, and the freezing peril in full, from two editions, with links to a state-published specimen of one and a trade-published copy of the other.
What is actually true about our sourcing here. Short provisions are quoted verbatim where the exact wording decides a claim — “for loss by theft of”, the freezing condition, the electronics carve-out — because paraphrasing those is how readers end up with the wrong answer. We do not reproduce whole sections, and we do not host the forms. Carrier versions differ, editions differ, and the only wording that governs your claim is the wording in your own policy: confirm anything you act on against your 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.
Sources
Every passage this page puts in quotation marks, with the document it came from, the part of that document, and the date we read it. 17 quotations from 5 documents. Follow the links and check us. Statutes are amended and pages move; if one of these is wrong or dead, our corrections policy says how we handle it.
Wisconsin OCI, Consumer's Guide to Homeowners Insurance PI-015 — https://oci.wi.gov/Documents/Consumers/PI-015.pdf
For an additional premium, a special personal property coverage endorsement (HO-15) can be added to extend HO-3 to provide “comprehensive” coverage on unscheduled personal property.
Wisconsin OCI, Consumer's Guide to Homeowners Insurance PI-015 — the 'Special Form (HO-3)' entry, final sentence. THE PAGE WAS ALREADY QUOTING THIS ENTRY TWICE and had never quoted its last sentence, which is the remedy the whole page is looking for Retrieved 25 August 2026.
Not all insurers offer HO-5, but many offer similar policies
Wisconsin OCI, Consumer's Guide to Homeowners Insurance, PI-015 R 07/2026 — 'Comprehensive Form (HO-5)' Retrieved 24 August 2026.
not often sold today, but you could have one from earlier years
Wisconsin OCI, Consumer's Guide to Homeowners Insurance, PI-015 R 07/2026 — 'Comprehensive Form (HO-5)' Retrieved 24 August 2026.
a special addition to your homeowners policy, such as a personal property floater
Wisconsin OCI, Consumer's Guide to Homeowners Insurance, PI-015 R 07/2026 — 'Personal Property Floater' Retrieved 24 August 2026.
against loss or damage from any peril except for the ones specifically listed in the policy as being excluded
Wisconsin OCI, Consumer's Guide to Homeowners Insurance, PI-015 R 07/2026 — 'Special Form (HO-3)' Retrieved 24 August 2026.
slightly more restrictive than other homeowner policies for owner-occupants
Wisconsin OCI, Consumer's Guide to Homeowners Insurance, PI-015 R 07/2026 — 'Modified Coverage Form (HO-8)' Retrieved 24 August 2026.
ISO Homeowners 3 — https://www.maine.gov/pfr/insurance/themes/insurance/pdf/hanover_ins_group/citizens_ins_co_america/ho_00_03_05_11_homeowners_3_special_form.pdf
$1,500 for loss by theft of jewelry, watches, furs, precious and semiprecious stones.
ISO Homeowners 3 — Special Form, HO 00 03 05 11, as filed with and published by the Maine Bureau of Insurance. ISO does not publish its forms; this is a state-published specimen a reader can open — the only one we have found that actually opens — Section I Property Coverages, C.3.e, Special Limits Of Liability. NOTE 'for loss by theft of'. This is a THEFT-ONLY limit; jewelry destroyed by fire is not capped by it. An earlier version of this page grouped it with the general caps Retrieved 24 August 2026.
$2,500 for loss by theft of firearms and related equipment.
ISO Homeowners 3 — Special Form, HO 00 03 05 11, as filed with and published by the Maine Bureau of Insurance. ISO does not publish its forms; this is a state-published specimen a reader can open — the only one we have found that actually opens — Section I Property Coverages, C.3.f. Also theft-only Retrieved 24 August 2026.
$200 on money, bank notes, bullion, gold other than goldware, silver other than silverware, platinum other than platinumware, coins, medals, scrip, stored value cards and smart cards.
ISO Homeowners 3 — Special Form, HO 00 03 05 11, as filed with and published by the Maine Bureau of Insurance. ISO does not publish its forms; this is a state-published specimen a reader can open — the only one we have found that actually opens — Section I Property Coverages, C.3.a. A GENERAL cap, with no peril qualifier — the contrast that makes the theft-only limits legible Retrieved 24 August 2026.
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.
ISO Homeowners 3 — Special Form, HO 00 03 05 11, as filed with and published by the Maine Bureau of Insurance. ISO does not publish its forms; this is a state-published specimen a reader can open — the only one we have found that actually opens — Section I Perils Insured Against, B.15. Item 15 is a HEADING followed by exactly one sentence, and this is it; an earlier entry called it the peril's 'second sentence', which invented a first one. Same fabricated-structure error as the AlumiConn correction, committed the same day inside a correction fixing something else. It removes most of what a reader hopes the peril covers. Identical in the 2022 edition, so not an edition artifact. This page added the peril as a correction and illustrated it with a fried television, which is the excluded case Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Sudden And Accidental Damage From Artificially Generated Electrical Current
ISO Homeowners 3 — Special Form, HO 00 03 05 11, as filed with and published by the Maine Bureau of Insurance. ISO does not publish its forms; this is a state-published specimen a reader can open — the only one we have found that actually opens — Section I Perils Insured Against, B.15, the fifteenth of sixteen Coverage C perils. An earlier version of this page omitted it and then said everything not listed was uncovered Retrieved 24 August 2026.
freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or of a household appliance, but only if you have used reasonable care to: (1) Maintain heat in the building; or (2) Shut off the water supply and drain all systems and appliances of water.
ISO Homeowners 3 — Special Form, HO 00 03 05 11, as filed with and published by the Maine Bureau of Insurance. ISO does not publish its forms; this is a state-published specimen a reader can open — the only one we have found that actually opens — Section I Perils Insured Against, B.14 'Freezing', sub-paragraph a. THE CONDITION IS THE PERIL. Quoted from 'freezing' onward because the heading repeats the word; the 'but only if' clause is what this page dropped Retrieved 27 August 2026.
ISO Homeowners 3 — https://assets.alm.com/ea/96/e2eb4cdc48bab110a6e257249cea/ho-00-03-03-22-homeowners-3-special-form-1.pdf
$2,000 for loss by theft of jewelry, watches, furs, precious and semiprecious stones.
ISO Homeowners 3 — Special Form, HO 00 03 03 22 (© Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2021), from a copy of the form published online by a trade publisher — no state-published specimen of this edition was found — Section I Property Coverages, C.3.e. The 2022 revision raised this from $1,500 and left the words 'for loss by theft of' in place, so the theft-only distinction this page turns on survives the rewrite Retrieved 24 August 2026.
$3,000 for loss by theft of firearms and related equipment.
ISO Homeowners 3 — Special Form, HO 00 03 03 22 (© Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2021), from a copy of the form published online by a trade publisher — no state-published specimen of this edition was found — Section I Property Coverages, C.3.f. Raised from $2,500 Retrieved 24 August 2026.
$300 on money, bank notes, bullion, gold other than goldware, silver other than silverware, platinum other than platinumware, coins, medals, scrip, stored value cards and smart cards.
ISO Homeowners 3 — Special Form, HO 00 03 03 22 (© Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2021), from a copy of the form published online by a trade publisher — no state-published specimen of this edition was found — Section I Property Coverages, C.3.a. Raised from $200, and still a GENERAL cap with no peril qualifier Retrieved 24 August 2026.
ISO Homeowners 3 — https://www.maine.gov/pfr/insurance/sites/maine.gov.pfr.insurance/files/inline-files/ho-00-03-04-91.pdf
does not include loss on the ‘residence premises’ while the dwelling is unoccupied, unless you have used reasonable care to: a. Maintain heat in the building; or b. Shut off the water supply and drain the system
ISO Homeowners 3 — Special Form, HO 00 03 04 91, as published by the Maine Bureau of Insurance — Section I Perils Insured Against, Coverage C peril 14. Read from the PDF's own text layer. For a few hours on 27 Aug 2026 this entry carried the 2011 form's URL and told readers the 1991 form 'is not published by any state we found', which was false: our own raw reading records fetching it from Maine that same day. NOTE THE QUOTATION MARKS: the form uses double quotes around ‘residence premises’ and this entry uses singles, because the passage is nested inside a quotation on the page. The words are the form's. The 1991 posture is the opposite of the 2011 one: non-occupancy removes the peril unless care was taken Retrieved 27 August 2026.
NAIC, Definitions for State Regulator Homeowners Market Data Call 2026 — https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/industry-data-call-property-ho-definitions.pdf
open perils for both dwelling and personal property
NAIC, Definitions for State Regulator Homeowners Market Data Call 2026 — HO-5 (Comprehensive Form) entry Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Frequently asked questions
Is an HO-5 better than an HO-3?
It is broader, and we do not rank products. The big change is personal property: contents move from named perils to open perils. The dwelling side is not identical either — both forms cover the building on an open-perils basis, but on an open-perils form the exclusion list is the coverage, and Wisconsin's regulator describes the HO-5 as having “an even shorter list of exclusions” without saying which. So we will not tell you the dwelling difference is nothing. Whether any of it 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 — but only if you used reasonable care to maintain heat or drain the system, and on the 1991 edition not while the dwelling is unoccupied unless you did one of those two things, 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 — which expressly does NOT cover the tubes, transistors, electronic components or circuitry inside appliances, computers or home entertainment equipment, so a surge that kills your television is the case this peril excludes, and volcanic eruption. Glass breakage and collapse are not on it — they are Additional Coverages with their own narrower triggers, and most summaries of this list get that wrong. 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.