[staticautomatic]

You're misunderstanding both my point and how ALE works. Among other things:

1. ALE time limits are set by the policy unless otherwise defined by statute. In CA, for example, if you are displaced due to a natural disaster, your ALE coverage remains in place by law "for a period of no less than 24 months from the inception of the loss" (CA Insurance Code 2051.5(b)(2))

2. There is no statutory ALE time limit on uninsured losses (at least not in CA). In theory (and in practice), you can make a claim for an indefinite period of time if you can prove you'd more likely than not stay in your apartment forever (I have recently seen one such actual claim in SF for 30 years of ALE, for example).

3. If you live in SF, you should expect 4 years of ALE because it might well take that long to rebuild. The building owner may spend the better part of a year deciding whether or not to rebuild, 3-6 months getting estimates, and 2 years actually rebuilding. This happens all the time.

4. I won't speak for what other people want from their insurance, but the loss I am personally trying to protect against is not the out of pocket cost while I look for a temporary apartment, it's the additional $2K or $3K+ per month that a temporary apartment is going to cost me until I can either find something cheaper, move back into my old unit after a rebuild, or decide to permanently leave the Bay Area. I want to buy myself as much time for that process/decision as possible, because the odds are good I'll need it.

[phonon]

ALE for a home vs. renting are conceptually extremely different, sorry. ALE for a home covers the fact that it may take many months to rebuild, particularly after a natural catastrophe. ALE for a rental means how long it takes the renter to find suitable long-term housing somewhere else.

If the underlying issue here is that you're in some sort of rent controlled situation, and market rents in your area are way way higher than what you pay, and you expect the insurance company to pay ALE until you find another rent controlled apartment--sorry. You're not going to find many insurers that will plan on covering that.

[staticautomatic]

You are incorrect.

A) There's no point in quibbling over what "temporary" or "permanent" means because the definition varies from policy to policy. There is no other source of truth unless it's in a legal statute.

B) With respect to the scenario I'm talking about, you are both factually and legally wrong. Again, I know this because I work on property damage lawsuits for a living. If my rent-controlled apartment is damaged in a fire and I have to temporarily relocate to another more expensive one for 3 years while I wait for mine to be rebuilt, the additional living expense I pay in the form of increased rent during that period is absolutely something ALE is intended to, and does in fact, cover.

[phonon]

Well, tell me if you find a carrier offering renters insurance with ALE of I guess the $200k+ limit you're looking for. I'm sure it exists, but not in a mass market, D2C product line, where the underlying personal property coverage is much less than that.

Also, since unlike homeowners' the carrier has no way in expediting the rebuilding of the building, I'd be surprised if they are willing to pay for your rent indefinitely until the original building is rebuilt. Perhaps you could win if you took them to court, but it will not be a routine process.