It is understood that initial indications are that there was fuel.
I can immediately think of two double flame outs due water or water/ice ingestion where the engines were not relit as follows:-
May 24, 1988 Boeing 737-300 N75356 TACA near New Orleans.
'While in bound to New Orleans, during the descent from FL350, the crew noted generally green and yellow returns on their weather radar but with some 'isolated' red cells on both sides of their planned track. Before entering the cloud at about 30,000ft., the captain selected continuous engine ignition and turned on the engine anti-ice system. The descent continued with the crew selecting a path between two storm cells showing as red on the radar. Shortly after this heavy rain, hail and turbulence were encountered and as the aircraft reached about 16,500ft., both of its engines flamed out. The crew started up the APU and electrical power was restored as the aircraft descended through 10,600ft. Several attempts were made to restart the engines (four attempts, two on each engine) but without success. With no power and little prospect of reaching an airfield, it is believed that the captain became resigned to having to ditch the aircraft in the Intracoastal Waterway, however, in the end, he was able to land on a narrow grass strip between a canal and a levee. The forced landing was successful and the aircraft suffered only minimal damage.
The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was a double engine flame out due to water ingestion which occurred as a result of an encounter with a region of very heavy rain and hail. A contributing cause of the accident was the inadequate design of the engines and the FAA's water ingestion certification standards which did not reflect the 'waterfall' rates that can be expected in moderate or higher intensity thunderstorms.'
and
April 4, 1977 DC-9 Srs.31 N1335U Southern Airways, New Hope, Georgia
'Whilst descending through 15,000ft., enroute from Huntsville, Alabama to Atlanta the aircraft encountered a severe thunderstorm near Rome, Georgia. After entering the storm both of its engines sustained damage through the ingestion of 'massive amounts' of water and hail. Both engines suffered severe compressor stalls an eventually failed. The crew were unable to restart the engines and were forced to carry out an emergency landing. The aircraft attempted to land on Highway 92 at New Hope, but struck a tree and a gas station and was destroyed by impact and fire. Apart from the occupants of the aircraft, nine people on the ground also died as the result of the accident.
The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was the total and unique loss of thrust from both engines due to the ingestion of water and hail, which, in combination with thrust lever movement, induced severe stalling and major damage to the engine compressors. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the company's despatching system to provide the crew with up-to-date severe weather information, the captain's reliance of weather radar for thunderstorm penetration and limitations in the ATC system, which precluded the timely dissemination of realtime hazardous weather information to the crew.'
Any others?
Lastly, including 'those accidents the media does not report', Garuda (excluding Merpati) has suffered four 'hull losses' (Boeing/FSF definition) including one event where the aircraft was not badly damaged but was apparently not repaired for commercial reasons in the last ten years. . .If you include Merpati then the number goes up considerably (but not to 26) but look at where that airline is operating.