Hmmm. . . Insurers using drones to inspect insured properties

[CoachKandSportsguy]

wsj.com (https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/home-insurance-aerial-images-37a18b16)

Behind a paywall, i gave up my WSJ subscription for just cutting and usage. . apologies to those who like to turn people in for such. .

but copied from what I could read:

Cindy Picos was dropped by her home insurer last month. The reason: aerial photos of her roof, which her insurer refused to let her see.

Hmmm, they can also perform storm, hurricane and fraud claims reviews with the drone footages.

Technology good or not good? cost savings not passed onto consumers? claims denied with poor drone angle or conclusions from too far away?

Anyone know if any TV insurers doing this?

[Michael 61]

As a retired insurance claims guy, I dealt with more than my fair share of fraudulent claims - flagged those that were known (Special Investigation Unit) - But lots of fraud goes undetected - We as consumers pay for other’s dishonesty through increases in insurance premiums.

[JohnN]

I don't really have a problem with insurers using drones, though they should share footage if their is a disagreement.

[JRcorvette]

As a retired insurance claims guy, I dealt with more than my fair share of fraudulent claims - flagged those that were known (Special Investigation Unit) - But lots of fraud goes undetected - We as consumers pay for other’s dishonesty through increases in insurance premiums.

Over 36 years in the insurance property claims business. There is a ton of fraud by insured’s and contractors alike. All policy holders pay for fraud.

[dtennent]

Using a drone to take pictures is no big deal. Planes have flown over property with cameras for a long time - just ask Gary Powers. However, not sharing the video/ photos is wrong. I guess that we would have to get Gold Wingnut to produce an indepedent video.

[Velvet]

I have no problem with drones flying over and taking pictures. I just want them to share it with me when it is my property.

[villagetinker]

This is interesting, before we moved here, I had 3 roofing companies come to our previous house for a small leak in an addition of about 40 square feet. 2 companies gave an estimate from the ground, the 3rd actually went up on the roof. He found hail damage and invited me up on the roof to show me. The insurance company reviewed weather reports and sure enough there was a hail storm 50 weeks prior. Only one side of the roof was damaged due to wind direction, so the insurance covered the cost for the one side and I paid for the other side. I like the ideas of using drones and would defiantly want to see the video proof.

[Goldwingnut]

Using drones from roof inspections is a good idea (safety) and has been being used for several years now. Like most here, I am shocked at the insurance company not letting her see the photos that were taken and used as the basis for cancelation. I'm not doubting the photos exist, but I do questions the ethics of the insurance company, smells pretty fishy to me.

[Shipping up to Boston]

wsj.com (https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/home-insurance-aerial-images-37a18b16)

Behind a paywall, i gave up my WSJ subscription for just cutting and usage. . apologies to those who like to turn people in for such. .

but copied from what I could read:

Cindy Picos was dropped by her home insurer last month. The reason: aerial photos of her roof, which her insurer refused to let her see.

Hmmm, they can also perform storm, hurricane and fraud claims reviews with the drone footages.

Technology good or not good? cost savings not passed onto consumers? claims denied with poor drone angle or conclusions from too far away?

Anyone know if any TV insurers doing this?

Like any dispute, documentation is key. I would get a reputable independent contractor to do a similar....albeit closer inspection to challenge the findings. Appeal

[mtdjed]

wsj.com (https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/home-insurance-aerial-images-37a18b16)

Behind a paywall, i gave up my WSJ subscription for just cutting and usage. . apologies to those who like to turn people in for such. .

but copied from what I could read:

Cindy Picos was dropped by her home insurer last month. The reason: aerial photos of her roof, which her insurer refused to let her see.

Hmmm, they can also perform storm, hurricane and fraud claims reviews with the drone footages.

Technology good or not good? cost savings not passed onto consumers? claims denied with poor drone angle or conclusions from too far away?

Anyone know if any TV insurers doing this?

If she was dropped by her home insurer because of a drone seeing damage, she should make a claim to the insurance company to fix the roof. Something is missing. I had a quote for insurance coverage this year from State Farm contingent upon an inspection. The inspector used a drone for the roof inspection and made a statement that the roof had five or more years of life. The inspection was submitted to State Farm and the underwriters rejected the home insurance. That is different than being dropped.

[badkarma318]

https://archive.is/20240407021031/https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/home-insurance-aerial-images-37a18b16

[defrey12]

I don't really have a problem with insurers using drones, though they should share footage if their is a disagreement.

They should share footage even if there is NO disagreement! It’s my house!

[CoachKandSportsguy]

If she was dropped by her home insurer because of a drone seeing damage, she should make a claim to the insurance company to fix the roof. Something is missing. I had a quote for insurance coverage this year from State Farm contingent upon an inspection. The inspector used a drone for the roof inspection and made a statement that the roof had five or more years of life. The inspection was submitted to State Farm and the underwriters rejected the home insurance. That is different than being dropped.

semantics, but same end result, so i disagree that its different because a slightly different process.

being rejected after a drone inspection and being dropped for the same issue after a drone inspection has the same end result. you just went through a slightly different process to get to the same end result.

[Shipping up to Boston]

semantics, but same end result, so i disagree that its different because a slightly different process.

being rejected after a drone inspection and being dropped for the same issue after a drone inspection has the same end result. you just went through a slightly different process to get to the same end result.

The very definition of insanity?!

[CoachKandSportsguy]

The very definition of insanity?!

There's a lot going around. . .
and the older i get, the more it happens to me. .

:oops:
:rant-rave:

[mntlblok]

wsj.com (https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/home-insurance-aerial-images-37a18b16)

Behind a paywall, i gave up my WSJ subscription for just cutting and usage. . apologies to those who like to turn people in for such. .

but copied from what I could read:

Cindy Picos was dropped by her home insurer last month. The reason: aerial photos of her roof, which her insurer refused to let her see.

Hmmm, they can also perform storm, hurricane and fraud claims reviews with the drone footages.

Technology good or not good? cost savings not passed onto consumers? claims denied with poor drone angle or conclusions from too far away?

Anyone know if any TV insurers doing this?

SIL taught me about this site. It's proven to often be right handy. (That second, "query" box).

https://archive.ph/

https://archive.is/ZqVwM

[jimjamuser]

wsj.com (https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/home-insurance-aerial-images-37a18b16)

Behind a paywall, i gave up my WSJ subscription for just cutting and usage. . apologies to those who like to turn people in for such. .

but copied from what I could read:

Cindy Picos was dropped by her home insurer last month. The reason: aerial photos of her roof, which her insurer refused to let her see.

Hmmm, they can also perform storm, hurricane and fraud claims reviews with the drone footages.

Technology good or not good? cost savings not passed onto consumers? claims denied with poor drone angle or conclusions from too far away?

Anyone know if any TV insurers doing this?
All I can add to this subject is a generalization.........all insurance is designed to have the INSURED individual pay in a REQUIRED consistent manner. Then the INSURING Company (agent) pays out after an accident in a less than consistent manner. The Company has a vested interest in NOT paying, so they pay sometimes and sometimes NOT.

[Shipping up to Boston]

All I can add to this subject is a generalization.........all insurance is designed to have the INSURED individual pay in a REQUIRED consistent manner. Then the INSURING Company (agent) pays out after an accident in a less than consistent manner. The Company has a vested interest in NOT paying, so they pay sometimes and sometimes NOT.

Oh wait....the latter I thought that was the model for Fan Duel, Wynn Bet and Draft Kings

[Topspinmo]

The drone probably captured stained roof. We villagers know stained roofs are bad:eclipsee_gold_cup: also I would think there minimum altitude that drones can fly over private property?

[Dusty_Star]

From the Wall Street Journal article:

“The technology is way ahead of any consumer protections,” said Douglas Heller, director of insurance at the Consumer Federation of America.

Some of the concerns would be: privacy, inaccurate or old photos, wrong photos.

[lvshworles]

Who do you you feel is THE BEST, reliable, honest, home roofers in our area?
A Village realtor mentioned that Florida just passed new laws regarding roof replacements! Has anyone heard if, and how they modified Florida’s insurance laws!
My concern is that my roof is 13 years old. Just had an inspection and the inspector said it still looks very tight.
Thanks

[badkarma318]

SIL taught me about this site. It's proven to often be right handy. (That second, "query" box).

https://archive.ph/

https://archive.is/ZqVwM

Already posted via archive site.

[Goldwingnut]

The drone probably captured stained roof. We villagers know stained roofs are bad:eclipsee_gold_cup: also I would think there minimum altitude that drones can fly over private property?

There is no defined legally minimum altitude for drone operations.
If Florida there is an expectation of privacy defined in FS 934.50 but it would likely not be applicable in this instance as there is a level of inherent consent for examination of the insured property when the contract was entered into.
This discussion is all hypothetical as there in not enough facts and information in the OP to make a complete evaluation of the situation.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

There is no defined legally minimum altitude for drone operations.
If Florida there is an expectation of privacy defined in FS 934.50 but it would likely not be applicable in this instance as there is a level of inherent consent for examination of the insured property when the contract was entered into.
This discussion is all hypothetical as there in not enough facts and information in the OP to make a complete evaluation of the situation.

Here is the archived link. .

https://archive.is/ZqVwM

[JRcorvette]

Here is the skinny on Drone use…

Minding my drone business: U.S. home insurance companies are using drones to expose damaged roof shingles, yards full of combustible junk, and swimming pools and trampolines homeowners failed to tell them about. An invasion of privacy? Nope. If it’s out in the open, you can legally photograph it.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Here is the skinny on Drone use…

Minding my drone business: U.S. home insurance companies are using drones to expose damaged roof shingles, yards full of combustible junk, and swimming pools and trampolines homeowners failed to tell them about. An invasion of privacy? Nope. If it’s out in the open, you can legally photograph it.

Aerial assessors. The new norm

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Aerial assessors. The new norm

another cheap technology removing jobs from the economy. .
roofing inspectors being replaced permanently. .