nostr:npub189nhq0cw33243htm08c53vjvgc5letv7d9sgqtgqsn6fnx6dv8zs0fsatx 
It's scary as heck. Most home owners use all their resources for the purchase. Good insurance can help mitigate some of the risk. In a disaster area both the renter and homeowner face the same risk of loss of life or personal effects that have intangible sentimental value. 

So weighing it out, an owner would have insurance to remedy the situation and provide alternative living arrangements during the restoration phase. But they would still have the same payments and perhaps rising insurance costs. They would have property to sell afterwards, but perhaps at a loss. But still something. With insurance companies pulling out of states they are saying the risk is not affordable anymore. 

A renter with insurance only has personal effects coverage. I am not sure if it would cover temporary housing if displaced. The renter likely would be competing for a reduced number of rentals with no expectations or control of getting their home rebuilt. 

Tough call that wealthy people don't worry about.