Posted on 09/03/2025 5:17:26 AM PDT by dennisw
'I think it's becoming very, very common,' Amy Bach, Executive Director at consumer advocacy group United Policyholders, told the outlet.
'People are getting dropped on basis of, "We see mold on your roof," or "We see damaged roof tiles," or "There's trees touching your house," risk factors that insurance companies are increasingly on the lookout for.'
Schueler found company to remove the branches in time, and so was able to keep her coverage.
'It ended up costing $1,200. I had no choice,' she told CBS.
Her policy was renewed for another year, but having her home monitored without her being notified has left a sour taste in her mouth.
A furious homeowner says her insurer used a drone to secretly photograph her house when she was out before threatening to cancel her insurance.
Lynne Schueler, from Massachusetts, said her insurer gave her weeks to trim back some trees on her property or it would end her policy, despite her being a customer with the company for more than a decade.
'It was very invasive, because they had taken a picture of my house without me knowing, which was really kind of crazy,' she told CBS News.
'I wasn't home because my car wasn't in the driveway.'
Schueler said she received an email with an aerial surveillance photo of her home and a message which said she had just six weeks to remove some tree branches hovering over her house.
She was reticent to cut branches off a 'beautiful tree' in her yard, and nervous about how much it might cost to remove them
But she was also concerned about how losing her insurance might impact her mortgage.
Schueler is by no means alone, and experts are warning that this surveillance practice is becoming increasingly common among insurers.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Full text of "Full Filing" for fiscal year ending Dec. 2023 United Policyholders, San Francisco
I don’t have a problem with it either.
But mold on the roof or damaged roof tiles is admission that the homeowner has a claim against the insurance company.
There is no right to privacy outside your home.
I don have a problem with insurance companies doing this, except they’ll pass the cost on to the insured. Are you ready to pay for aerial surveillance of your home and all that goes with it?
The property appraiser of my Florida county uses aerial images of the county.
*******
Drones are used to make roofing estimates, leaf clean up estimates, reseeding estimates of your yard........this broad is just a nutcase.
I had 30 year old shingles replaced on a house. Two contractors bid the job based on aerial photo that they ordered for $20.
a claims adjuster needs permission to drive by your house
*********
No, they don’t.
What are you talking about my “no Kings” homie? How is ensuring the insured is abiding by the conditions of the contract they signed becoming a “king”?
If the homeowner has a problem with the insurer looking out for both the insurers interests and the homeowners interest - then the homeowner can find a new insurer.
Go find a new insurer and see how long your privacy principles last in the face of reality.
😂
But IS the spying issue written in the contract? If not, then she’s totally justified in being pissed.
**********
It’s not spying. Sheesh. Insurance doesn’t want to insure a home that is being allowed to crumble. I knew a guy from school whose insurance company told him to get a new roof. He told them to take a hike and got a new insurance provider. Problem solved.
Actually, the FAA owns the airspace above her home and they have regulations about flying close to homes.
“**********
It’s not spying. Sheesh. Insurance doesn’t want to insure a home that is being allowed to crumble.”
So, it is not spying if you have an excuse???
“There is no right to privacy outside your home.”
Re drones, it depends on each state’s laws.
In any case, there is a right to be PISSED if someone / anyone is spying on you.
It’s not spying. Sheesh. Insurance doesn’t want to insure a home that is being allowed to crumble.”
So, it is not spying if you have an excuse???
***********
Is me looking at you outside in the open spying? Good God, people, be reasonable. The law says there is no right to privacy outside your home. And if you have a contract with a company, it’s entirely different. If you are not happy with the method your contracted insurance company uses to verify you are maintaining the structure it is insuring, get another provider. It’s that simple. The insurance company doesn’t owe you the ability to let the structure decay.
The FAA does not own any airspace. They provide regulations concerning the navigable air space. The property owner owns the rights to a portion of that space which consists of his enjoying his property. IOW, the space is owners subject to limits and does not reach to space!
Beat me to it.
You are wrong on all accounts. You can’t even define what a “portion” is.
“Is me looking at you outside in the open spying? “
So, go stand on a sidewalk with a pair of binoculars and look into people’s windows and at your trial you can scream and shout, “IT IS NOT SPYING IF YOU ARE OUTSIDE IN THE OPEN!!!”
Completely agree. The insurance company, if it does not have the right written into the contract, trespassed full stop. So did the property appraiser.
The police would need to have a search warrant to fly a drone over your house. If I fly a drone over my neighbor’s house, I could open myself up to a number of charges. The drone has a camera, and what it spies through a window very much violates the rights of the neighbor.
This is frog boiling. They’re doing it and then daring homeowners to sue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.