I don't know if it makes sense to get renter's coverage.
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.
I've moved about a dozen times over the last decade, and all but one rental required me to have a renter's insurance policy as part of the lease terms - most of whom also required me to list them as an interested party[1].
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.
My wife used to be a leasing agent for an apartment complex. One day a tenant from her complex started the dishwasher, something broke and it flooded the entire apartment and the apartment below it. Had tenant paid the $13 or so a month for renters insurance it would have been nothing or only a few hundred out of pocket for a deductible. Instead, tenant was looking at over $20,000 in repairs.
I'm not firsthand familiar with property insurance, but there are restrictions on who can purchase insurance. You have to have fiduciary interest.
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.
If you have any assets (401k, savings, stocks, car, etc) you should consider renter's insurance because it will offer liability protection. If a visitor is injured in your home and you are found legally responsible you could lose everything.
41% isn't 'rare' [0]. Aside from protecting your stuff in the event of disaster, the real value of rental insurance (must like car insurance) is liability protection in the event that something bad happens to someone else. Policy Genius has a good overview of what renters insurance does and doesn't normally cover [1].
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.
That's anecdata. I have no idea if it is generally true that trying to make a claim on renter's insurance is inherently suspicious activity. You would need to provide more evidence than one anecdote to support such a broad claim.
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.
Doesn't renter's insurance only cover the stuff you have inside your residence, not the actual unit itself? Why would the landlord care if you had that coverage?
There are two primary coverage types under renter's insurance policies: liability and personal property.
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.