I am surprised that their note holder did not require payment of the fee. These individuals got what they asked for. They did not pay for the coverage. Perhaps the fire department should have put the fire out but sent them a bill for their services. It seems unethical for the fire department to let a house burn down over non payment.
Given this couples son was 44 years old I am willing to bet even odds they likely owned the house outright and had no note. Also I have never heard of a note holder requiring to pay for fee based fire departments, they just require replacement coverage so if something happens they know their loan is going to be paid back. They don’t really care if the house is rebuilt or destroyed.