More than likely, it meant that whoever owned the home, had flood insurance. The homeowner’s insurance only covers the structure and not contents, when there is a renter within the property. Renters are only covered by renter’s insurance (which please, don’t cry a river about how expensive policies are. I rent and just for basic coverage of $10k, which I know doesn’t cover much, depending on their automobile insurance policy, they could have not only gotten it covered 100%, but saved $5/month because when you clump together multiple lines, it saves funds. We had a $30k policy when we had our fire/flood and we were paying $8/month for our renter’s policy and it was tacked onto our auto policy and paid together).
Hopefully, beyond hope, whoever the landlord is, has had the property properly insured. If not, Lauren and her family could face even a much worse situation because the landlord could try and sue them for the fire (not that it would go far), because if the house is not properly insured, and insurance gets told that it was being used as a rental property, they can refuse to pay out. If Lauren has a rental contract and it states they were responsible for carrying rental insurance (which a portion does cover the structure) and they failed to do so, they breached their lease…
And yes, some people don’t know this but if the buyers used certain government programs to purchase the house, it is not legal for them to rent the house out to anyone too.
It can become a legal nightmare for them everyone involved. Insurance adjusters are going to definitely come poking and looking to see if they can place blame on someone else and the whole situation. I dealt with one and I threw myself a party, the day our claim was closed out, and I didn’t have to deal with his invasive and almost unethical questioning of our lives..