The first entity responsible is the homeowner's insurance. This insurance
is the product of a contract which existed between the renter and the
insurer, perhaps mandated by the terms of the renter's lease. If the
insurer pays the renter for damages which were caused by one or more other
entities, the insurer has a right of subrogation against the responsible
party or parties. The difference is that there is no "fault" which needs to
be shown in the insurer's payment to the renter, whereas the insurer must
prove fault on the part of the other parties before it is entitled to
recover.

A similar thing happens with auto accidents. An insured's collison pay for
his damages without regard to the insured's fault. Payments between
companies are governed by intercompany arbitration agreements which assess
fault between different insureds involved in a collision, and the process is
almost invisible to the insured. In the event that the insured is
determined not to be at fault, he is reimbursed his deductible.

Isn't that what the apartment owner's insurance is for??? I mean, if
the crash was deliberate I could sort of understand it, but it was an
accident, after all..

No, it's what Lidle's liability insurance is for. Why should the
homeowner's insurance be resonsible?