Hmmm. . . Insurers using drones to inspect insured properties
 

wsj.com

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?!

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

:oops:
:rant-rave: