California insurance company takes drone aerial images of a customers yard and drops his homeowners’ insurance after what they discover

Amid the onset of California’s wildfire season, the availability of homeowners’ insurance is diminishing, with some companies refraining from issuing new policies and others discontinuing coverage for longstanding clients. A Bay Area resident experienced this firsthand when his insurance was terminated due to findings from aerial images taken over his property by a drone.

The news blindsided him. Initially, he was informed that his insurance was revoked based on “drone photos” that had captured potential hazards in his yard. However, the insurance company declined to provide him with these images. Later, he was informed that the photos were not from a drone but from aerial sources. Feeling his privacy invaded and unable to reinstate his policy, he found himself at a loss.

CJ Sveen, residing in Oakley, was accustomed to occasional drone flights around his property without much thought. However, this changed when he received an unexpected notice from his long-standing home insurance provider, the California State Automobile Association (CSAA) Insurance Group, an affiliate of AAA.

The notice conveyed the decision to terminate his homeowner’s insurance policy. Despite his residence not being in a fire-prone area and him never having filed a claim over 15 years, the notice cited “debris, hazardous conditions, tires, or a dilapidated car” in his yard as the reason for termination.

Puzzled by how this assessment was made without an inspection, Sveen contacted the company. He learned that they had used a drone to survey his property, a revelation that left him astonished and concerned.

However, in a subsequent communication, CSAA clarified that no drones were involved in the evaluation process, asserting that the company does not employ drones for property surveillance. Instead, they explained that they review “proprietary aerial imagery,” possibly obtained via fixed-wing airplanes or satellites, to gauge risk.

Despite this, CSAA refused to share the imagery with Sveen or ABC, the news station investigating the matter. In an attempt to gain insight, ABC utilized its own drone to simulate the viewpoint from above. Meanwhile, Sveen provided a ground-level tour, acknowledging some clutter in his yard. He justified this by describing himself as a hands-on hobbyist, engaged in activities such as restoring a vintage vehicle and installing solar panels.

Sveen lodged a complaint with the State Department of Insurance, expressing frustration over the lack of opportunity to address the findings. In response, the insurance company cited specific objects visible in the images, including debris, a gray truck with materials in the bed, a tan vehicle with debris on top, and a deteriorated car, which was likely his ’66 Chevy project.

Expressing offense at the judgment passed based on his possessions, Sveen also highlighted the company’s disregard for his lengthy history as a reliable policyholder who had never made claims or missed premium payments.

Despite his efforts, the company maintained its stance, emphasizing that historical policy performance and premium payment consistency do not influence property risk evaluations. This decision left Sveen feeling perplexed and uncertain about his next steps.

This incident underscores the increasing use of technological tools, like aerial photography, by insurance companies to assess property risk. CSAA advised that individuals can access services such as Google Earth 3-D to gain insights into the information that companies might consider when evaluating home insurance risk.

Regarding the legality of drone photography over residential properties, California state law prohibits such activity only if it is conducted with the intent of invasion of privacy.