Comparison
All-In vs. Bare Walls: Two Ways a Master Policy Can Be Written
An all-in master policy extends coverage to interior finishes and even betterments, while a bare-walls policy stops at the unfinished structure, leaving owners responsible for everything from drywall inward through their HO-6 policy.
An all-in master policy is written to cover the building along with interior finishes, fixtures, and sometimes owner betterments, which raises the association's premium but shrinks the coverage owners must carry individually. A bare-walls master policy covers only the unfinished structure, shifting cabinetry, flooring, and fixtures onto each owner's HO-6 policy, which lowers the association's premium but places more responsibility on individual owners.
Two associations with identical buildings can carry very different master policies simply because their declarations chose different words decades apart. All-in and bare-walls are the two ends of a spectrum describing how far the master policy reaches into each unit, and the choice affects premium, claims handling, and how much an owner needs to carry separately.
This comparison is a side-by-side look at the two structures; the fuller mechanics of allocation, amendments, and how original specifications fit between them live in the community-associations unit coverage allocation guide, which is worth reading before a board considers changing its declaration language.
All-In Master Policy
Covers the building plus interior finishes and often betterments
Strengths
- Covers cabinetry, flooring, fixtures, and built-in finishes as part of the association's master policy
- Often extends to owner betterments and upgrades, reducing what individual owners must insure
- Simplifies claims after a shared loss since fewer components fall into a coverage gap
- Can make units more attractive to buyers who prefer simpler, more comprehensive insurance
Where it falls short
- Generally carries a higher premium, spread across all owners through assessments
- Requires owners to disclose upgrades so the master policy's valuation stays accurate
- A high-value unit's custom finishes may still exceed what the association's policy anticipates
Best for
Associations that want to minimize coverage gaps between units and are willing to fund a broader master policy collectively.
Bare-Walls Master Policy
Covers only the unfinished structure, leaving interiors to owners
Strengths
- Generally carries a lower master policy premium since the covered scope is narrower
- Keeps the association's insurance responsibility focused strictly on shared structural elements
- Avoids disputes over betterment valuation since the master policy never covers upgrades
- Can suit associations with widely varying unit finishes where a uniform all-in valuation is impractical
Where it falls short
- Shifts more coverage responsibility onto individual owners, who must carry adequate HO-6 limits
- Creates more room for disputes over where the master policy's coverage actually ends after a loss
- Owners who underinsure their HO-6 policy can be left with a real gap after a shared-source loss
Best for
Associations that prefer a leaner, lower-premium master policy and are comfortable placing more responsibility on individual owner policies.
Side by side
| All-In Master Policy | Bare-Walls Master Policy | |
|---|---|---|
| Premium level | Generally higher, funded by all owners | Generally lower, funded by all owners |
| Interior finishes (flooring, cabinetry) | Typically covered | Not covered; owner's responsibility |
| Fixtures installed by the developer | Typically covered | Typically not covered |
| Owner betterments and upgrades | Often covered, subject to disclosure | Not covered |
| Owner's HO-6 burden | Lighter | Heavier |
| Claims complexity after a shared loss | Generally simpler | Can involve more allocation disputes |
Why the choice usually predates the current board
Most associations don't choose all-in or bare-walls fresh each year; the allocation is baked into the declaration when the community was formed and typically requires a formal amendment process to change. A current board inherits whichever structure the original developer or founding members selected, which is why reading the declaration rather than assuming a default matters so much.
What this means for HO-6 shopping
Owners in a bare-walls association generally need higher dwelling coverage limits on their HO-6 policy to rebuild finishes the master policy won't touch, while owners in an all-in association can often carry a leaner HO-6 policy focused on personal property, loss of use, and liability. Either way, the HO-6 policy should be shopped with the specific master policy allocation in hand, not a generic assumption.
How to decide
Which structure does your current declaration describe?
Confirm the actual language before assuming your association is all-in or bare-walls.
Would changing structures require an amendment vote?
Most declarations require owner approval to shift the allocation, so this isn't a decision the board can make alone.
Are unit finishes fairly uniform across the building?
Wide variation in unit upgrades can make an all-in valuation harder to price fairly across owners.
Do owners currently carry adequate HO-6 limits for the gap?
A bare-walls association should confirm owners understand how much they personally need to insure.
The bottom line
All-in and bare-walls are two legitimate ways to structure a master policy, and neither is universally better; the right fit depends on the building's finishes, the owners' risk tolerance, and how the declaration was originally written. For a deeper look at how original specifications fit between these two ends and how associations amend their allocation, see the unit coverage allocation guide.
Frequently asked questions
Coverage covered here
Industries this affects
Keep comparing
Master policy vs HO-6
The association's master policy insures the building and shared property under whichever allocation the declaration sets, while an HO-6 policy fills the gap for the owner's interior, personal property, loss assessment, and improvements the master policy doesn't reach.
Read itHOA vs condo association insurance
A homeowners association typically insures common areas and amenities while each owner insures their own freestanding home, whereas a condominium association's master policy reaches into the building itself, making the allocation between association and owner coverage far more involved.
Read itReady to see your options?
One application. Up to 10 competing quotes. Answer a few questions and we will shop your business to our A-rated carrier network, then a licensed agent walks you through the options.