[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