[jonkho]

That’s not correct. I’m a landlord of a rental duplex and homeowners insurance policy is a valid policy for the entire building. The Mortgage company does not allow a policy that doesnt adequately cover loss.

The point is this: rental property coverage is a solved problem. It is neither new nor novel problem. Water damage claims on rental properties are dealt with in the tune of hundreds of cases per month in this country if not more. Why is her’s so special?

[ceejayoz]

The thread says "I used my life savings to buy the building"; a mortgage company may not be involved at all.

I would presume your insurer is aware you let out part of your building, and that the premiums account for this fact. (Same scenario with Uber; folks who tell their insurer get a big bump in premiums, but folks who don't get claims denied when the insurer finds out they were driving commercially.)

I don't get the sense this poster told her insurer she was doing short-term rentals. The letting of the second unit seems to be temporary ("We hoped to have the upper unit available for our families to stay and help with the newborn"); it'd be entirely unsurprising if they decided not to clue the insurer in for the couple months of renting it.

[foogazi]

> a mortgage company may not be involved at all

You don’t need a mortgage/lender to carry insurance

[ceejayoz]

Sure, but if you don't have a mortgage/lender, there's no one to require you to carry insurance as a loan condition.

[foogazi]

Yes, it’s defined as self-insure

Anyway it sounds like the landlord did have insurance- they mention their rates going up, I guess it didn’t cover all of the damage