A renter's policy is ridiculously inexpensive for what you get. Because it only covers liability and personal property, and not the full breadth of coverage a homeowner's policy would have, it's easy to get a really comprehensive policy for less than ~$15 a month. I've only had to use my renter's policy once after a break in, and the payout for personal property coverage was more than my entire decade worth of premiums[2]. Especially if you're a techie, electronics/computing stuff[3] really starts to add up if you take a look at all the little gadgets and computers and home office[4] style stuff you have around.
[1] It basically sets it up so that your landlord gets notified of any policy changes (non-renewal, cancelations, limit changes, etc) and can know for sure that you're continually insured, and don't let the policy lapse after you've shown your proof of insurance at lease signing.
[2] Paying a few extra bucks for "replacement cost" coverage vs. "market value" coverage is well worth it. It's the difference between "here's $100 for your 5 year old MacBook Pro" and "here's $1000 to cover the replacement cost for another entry level MacBook Pro".
[3] If you have personal property replacement, you'll generally have per-category limits. If you don't explicitly request a rider for it, your e.g. $20k personal property replacement coverage may cap out electronics at $1k.
[4] If you have company-owned equipment at your house, your personal renter's policy would likely not cover it. If you work for yourself from home, your "for work" equipment is probably not technically covered under a standard renter's insurance policy, so you may want to explicitly clarify if you need a separate policy with your insurance company if you don't want to chance a claim with it getting denied.
So, for example, you can't buy a life insurance policy on a random stranger. That can go bad places and be an incentive to commit murder.
So it is possible the landlord cannot buy this specific insurance themselves and the coverage they can legally purchase does not cover the instance in question.
Renters insurance is cheap, especially compared to the value of your stuff, the cost of living in a hotel for an extended period of time, or paying someone's medical expenses after an accident.
[0] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-renters-... [1] https://www.policygenius.com/renters-insurance/learn/what-do...
I'm pretty anti-insurance. If you can find some means to meet your needs that doesn't involve insurance, I say go with that. But the reality is that insurance is a necessity for many people and makes sense in many cases.
I really wish the US would move to single payer health care for the nation. I think major medical insurance is inherently problematic and I hate that the US handles things that way.
Nonetheless, I'm happy to support the development of good services in the insurance industry, especially in areas outside of major medical coverage.
The liability coverage triggers for anything from people getting hurt on the property to (other) people's stuff accidentally getting damaged on the property. Basically anything anyone could sue you to pay for if it occurs on the property.
The personal property coverage is what covers your stuff if anything happens to it.
A landlord's policy will generally cover two things as well: liability and structure (and possibly property, e.g. major appliances that are supplied with the unit).
Landlord's requiring that tenants have a renter's policy specifically require liability coverage (usually a minimum amount, such as $100k), and don't care if you have personal property coverage. By doing so, they ensure their own premiums stay low because liability claims will go against the tenant's policy first, and only fall back to the landlord if the liability claim goes over what the tenant's policy will cover. So if a tenant has a $100k liability limit, and someone wins a $120k liability claim, then $100k of that gets covered by the tenant's policy before the landlord's insurance even comes into play. If someone wins a $50k claim, then the landlord's insurance never has to deal with it.
I had a friend who had his apartment burn, the first thing the cops asked him was if he had insurance, and the they told him they were very relieved, otherwise he would have been an arson suspect automatically.
Homeowners generally do have insurance, so they don't face this stigma, but renter's coverage is rare enough that having it and using it makes you look like a crook.