Even though the Standard Fire Policy is a named peril contract, under which of the following circumstances would the policy provide "all risk of loss" coverage on insured property?

The rationale behind the correct choice indicates that a named peril contract, such as the Standard Fire Policy, traditionally only covers losses caused by specific, listed perils. However, the phrase "all risk of loss" coverage can apply in specific scenarios, particularly for property that is located in conditions where the peril insured against poses a direct threat.

In this context, when the insured property is at risk due to a peril that is covered under the policy—such as fire, lightning, windstorm, etc.—the policy will respond as if it provides broader coverage. This means if circumstances arise that lead to loss or damage from a covered peril, the policy will indeed cover those losses.

The other choices do not satisfy this condition for "all risk of loss" coverage. For example, unoccupied properties or properties that have been abandoned may face limitations on coverage or exclusions due to their status. Losses from theft are also treated specifically under the policy provisions, often requiring separate coverage. Thus, only when the property directly faces a peril that is insured against, does it invoke the broader coverage principle inherent in this situation.