I haven't read the story given the paper in which it's reported, but it depends on several factors:
Does the insurance policy cover guests not paying following a fire? If so they shouldn't complain.
How serious was the fire? Could guests re-enter after a short time, and resume their meals? Even if so, they were unlikely to be as nice to eat. That depends on how tolerant people are with the state of food. Would it taste of smoke?
How much of each meal was eaten prior to the evacuation.
To me, once a meal has been served, whether or not subsequently eaten, the insurance should cover the cost of producing it. I'm sure there is more to it than what the paper has reported, but it's certainly an interesting one. Probably a case-by-case basis.