So something like:

> ...if a rental premises is “totally unusable” due to an external disaster then either the landlord or tenant can terminate the lease through written notice. But if the property is “partially unusable” because of a disaster, a tenant may only get a reduction in rent determined by a county or district court.

...? Because that's the current situation under the Texas property code according to the article.

Where it will get tricky is the legal distinctions of what usable means in this context. An apartment that is fine but has no working plumbing or power? A house that's fine except for the floors and carpets? Are the tenants storing things there? Can the property owner exercise their ownership rights by having parties or renting the place to the red cross or by kicking off a renovation?

These issues impact both sides of the agreement... Paying money secures rights for tenants/leasers. For every sad story about someone who can't pay their rent right now I bet we could put together bad legislation to make a hundred sad stories about people who lost their rentals and property because of market conditions favored them being kicked out during a flooding episode.

Floods and other natural disasters tend to sneak past most common insurance coverage...

Regardless, the underlying demands for payment, and to what extent, as posited by OP and detailed by the local laws, are not addressed by insurance alone.

Perfectly reasonable in my opinion. In fact my rental agreement has a similar clause which gives tenant 30 days to vacate and find another place OR I can provide 30 days of another accommodation for "Free" and then fix the place in those 30 days.

Both landlords and tenants are perfectly normal human beings with compassion and all that. They are not evil people. I was only triggered by "arrest these people" comments which in my opinion do not belong on a civilized forum like HN.