SF renters insurance is required by most landlords but no policy covers the actual risk: being displaced by a fire in a 100-year-old building

Your landlord requires renters insurance. You buy a $15/month policy from Lemonade covering $30K in personal property. You feel protected. Then a fire breaks out in the unit below yours in your 1908 building (SF has 45,000+ pre-1920 buildings with aging electrical). Your unit has smoke and water damage. You cannot live there for 3 months while repairs happen. Your renters insurance covers $30K in damaged belongings and $1,500/month in temporary housing (called Additional Living Expenses or ALE). But a temporary furnished apartment in SF costs $4,500-6,000/month. Your ALE coverage runs out in 1 month. For the remaining 2 months, you pay $4,500/month out of pocket while also paying rent on your damaged apartment (California law: you must pay rent if the unit is 'partially habitable'). Your total out-of-pocket cost for someone else's fire: $9,000+. So what? Standard renters insurance policies have ALE limits of $10-20K, designed for average US rents ($1,500/month). In SF, where temporary housing costs $4,500+/month, your ALE coverage lasts 2-4 months instead of the 6-12 months you might need. The policy that your landlord required you to buy is nearly useless for the most common SF renter disaster (fire in an old building). You paid premiums for years for protection that evaporates when you actually need it. Why does this persist in the first place? Renters insurance is a commodity product — insurers compete on price, not coverage adequacy. Lemonade, State Farm, and others sell the same $15-20/month policy nationally without adjusting ALE limits for SF cost of living. Landlords require it for liability protection (for themselves), not for adequate tenant coverage. No landlord checks if the policy's ALE limit is sufficient for SF temporary housing costs.