https://abc7.com/homeowners-insurance-non-renewal-drone-photos-nonrenewal/13526291/
A Bay Area man lost his home insurance after the carrier took aerial photos of the "clutter" in his yard.
They claim that they use photos from satellites and fixed-wing aircraft, but refuse to show the photos to both the owner and the news outlet. I can almost 100% guarantee the company is lying about how they obtained the photos and won’t show them because it would prove they did use a drone. Admitting to using a drone would open up a can of legal issues for them that they want to avoid.
I doubt they're flying drones or taking any pictures themselves. They are purchasing imaging from companies that do this like what the ESA offers through Skysat. My county was doing the same thing for planning department enforcement and got a lot of flak for it.
I think it is way more likely they just bought imagery from existing sources. There are tons of high res imagery out there that you can purchase. Price is usually determined by how old it is. This seems way more likely than an insurance company hiring a drone operator and going door to door. Secondly, companies never share the details of things like this. Wherever the source, they are unlikely to share it. Companies don't give details because they don't want to fight you. They just want to cancel your account and move on.
That isn't to say this is right.
Do we want insurance companies peering into our backyards from imagery? I don't. Regardless of if it's a drone or not.
It’s more likely it was purchased/licensed imagery. I just think it’s weird and unfair that they won’t share the images that they used against the client. It’s similar to red light tickets. If people get one, they expect photo proof to come with it.
What legal issues would they be opening themselves up to? All airspace in the US is regulated by the FAA. As long as they weren't in restricted airspace, following all the regulations, and the operator had the proper part 107 license there is nothing illegal about using a drone in this manner. There have been various discussions over the years about "owning" airspace over ones property but nothing has even gone to court that I'm aware of. Not to mention the company could have well seen onto the persons property while being over public space (I.E. the road).
I'm not arguing if this was right or wrong, but I see nothing illegal here.
Complete speculation on my part, but privacy laws? My understanding is that in the US, broadly speaking, you have a right to privacy where it would be reasonably expected, which I've usually heard defined as places you can't easily see from the sidewalk. If my understanding is true, then this would be an invasion of privacy just like some creep standing on a ladder peeping on people in their high fenced backyards, and there are generally laws against such behavior.
The article touches on that part actually right at the end:
As for legality of taking drone pictures over a house? California state law only forbids that if you're specifically doing so as a sort of peeping tom.
Would’ve been nice if they explained it a bit more.
For example, California has some civil laws covering such things due to paparazzi using technology, but the key with those is the intent to capture people’s activities: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1708.8.&lawCode=CIV
Yeah, I think it’s a proximity thing. The risk of a drone crashing over a yard is part of that factor I think, which makes sense. Imagine a big drone crashing on some kid’s head 😬
I don’t know the exact details, but I think there are laws about proximity to the yard and home, plus the safety risks involved. It obviously varies from state to state, but I had a friend that sold his because of how weird the laws get.
Fun fact: I used to work with a client that was a filmmaker. They did tons of drone footage for movies, commercials, tons of big client things. They had a RED camera attached to a super high-end drone that required 2 operators: a camera operator, and a drone pilot (they also had their pilot‘s license). The guy regularly worked with the FAA to help shape the FAA laws for drone footage due to how murky they can be. I always thought that was super interesting.
Oh the laws are super-weird. I have my license and a drone which is why I felt the need to comment. I used to work for a utility company and we had a two-operator drone that required that. Though it was nothing high-end for filming. We used it for inspections, to back-fill crappy satellite imagery, and occasional community events. I've kept my license current intending to do something with it, just haven't really put a lot of work into that other than creating the LLC. One of these days I'll finally get around to it...I keep thinking real estate.
Honestly, Real Estate is a race to the bottom. Not that I’m complaining, I found a place that will do a Matterport scan of a small building for $250 and send me CAD files of the floors (I’m a structural engineer, so getting a full 3D photo and scan plan without having to tape a place myself if a huge help).
I got my part 107 so I could justify spending $400 on an OG DJI mini to play with. Turns out it’s actually super useful for getting roof data on existing hvac units (I can read model and serial numbers off face plates). The down side is that it works so well I haven’t been able to justify spending more for a better drone.
That sounds super cool. I’ve got some friends that have had a studio for years and they do all kinds of stuff. Promo videos for universities, commercials, events. I bet if you put it out there, there’s a market for it. I’ve seen the higher end real estate companies do flyover videos too. That kind of thing you could probably have a few queued up a day.
It was honestly super-fun. Loved getting out in the field with my partner in crime to fly. Hmm may have to do a little more digging. I literally have all the pieces of the puzzle: LLC, drone, insurance, experience, etc. Just have to find the right way to break into the market. I thought I had a lead on doing tower inspections around the state but that ended up falling through. :( Cheers!
Oof, what a bummer! A city contract like that sounds like it could be steady. You could go super niche. Make fun videos for a YouTube channel lol.
Yeah it would have been guaranteed, high-paying work forever as long as I kept up the quality. All towers need to be inspected regularly. I thought about that but I'm not even slightly creative and wouldn't even know where to begin.
So if they're not drones, what is the implication there? That insurance companies are flying fucking spy planes over the US? Ridiculous that this is viewed as ok.
I get it, my sister got bugs in her home before from a hoarder neighbor and I've known somebody who had to move due to a fire caused by a different hoarder so I understand why they'd want/need to do this. But I feel like this falls under the inspection notification laws, at least my state has it where they need to inform you 24 hours before any inspection. So they should've sent out a notification 24 hours before flying the drone over and it would've been fine IMO. I'm not saying this guy was a hoarder either though, the insurance company wouldn't release their photos so we can't say if that's actually the case one way or the other. But I'm fine with them using drones tbh.
That seems pretty reasonable.
But also, insurance companies have way too much power here. They serve a valuable need, but the company made 15 years of 100% pure profit by ducking out at the first inkling there was of risk. There needs to be a lot more regulation around insurers of all types to help protect consumers.
Absolutely agree, I don't think they should be able to pull out like they did here. I could possibly see it if it was an extreme case of hoarding with an open flame and tons of flammable material or something like that, but there's nothing to suggest that's the case so the insurance company is in the wrong still. I was more referring to the use of the drone tech itself since this is the tech community.
Yeah but looking at what he showed it's not like a hoarder situation, it's a significant amount of stuff but it's not like there's literally a pile of tires and garbage back there, he's just got some car accessories and a few sets of tires for his cars by his house and stuff like that. It's a lot of stuff for the average person but nothing noteworthy generally pretty tame for a guy that's into old cars. Maybe he cleaned it up some for the news, but if they aren't showing their pictures it's his word against theirs and I'm more inclined to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I played Where's Waldo: Oakley Subdivision Edition seems pretty representative based on that. Also residents of Oakley seem to really like having cars and boats and shit in their side yards. if this guy is uninsurable then half the city is.
I agree. I wasn't implying he deserved to have his plan dropped. Only commenting on the use of the drone tech for inspecting people's properties. I should've clarified I was not defending the insurance company's decision to cancel his plan.
If they think this is a hoarder, they ought to take a look at 2 of the homes near me lol. Both have been fined and forced to clean up by the city multiple times. One house was so bad they had junk like old cars, appliances, and old parts covering the sidewalk, let alone their own yard. I can see an insurance company dropping them, but this isn’t even close to bad.
Oh I agree, I don't think he should've been dropped especially since they're not showing the photos they took meaning it's likely not that bad. I was more so just referring to the use of drone tech for this type of inspection. I think that's fine, as long as they're giving proper notification like what's required with human inspectors.
The video is from the news station doing the story, he's had plenty of time to stage the yard to make himself look better.
yea but if you're assuming the guy might lie then it's just a he-said-she-said between insurance companies that are known to employ awful shitty practices and just some dude and you're taking the side of the corporations
As someone who works in insurance, this guy sounds like an otherwise ideal customer. The insurance company would be turning down easy profit if they really cancelled his policy for no reason.
This isn't like denying a claim for shitty reasons. If this company cancelled someone with no claims in a low risk area, they either had a good reason or fucked up.
Or insurance needs to be nationalized and not run for profit. Insurance started as a way for rich people to hedge against a total loss when investing in long distance trading ventures. Insurers then found a way to worm into every aspect of life including things like housing which is not a venture undertaken by choice.
Yes, any insurance company with "mutual" in the name is basically operated for the benefit of the insured parties. The owners are the policyholders, and any profit the insurance company makes gets paid out to the policyholders as dividends essentially partially offsetting the cost of their ongoing premiums.
Turns out, though, plenty of insurance companies run this way can still enrich their executives at the expense of policyholders and owners, so you still need to keep an eye out for self-interested individuals (or incompetence that costs everyone money), even if the company itself isn't profit-driven.