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 ...
What makes her think it was a drone? Has she never seen the satellite image capabilities of Google?
I don’t like the idea of insurance companies spying on homeowners but this woman is no saint despite how the article tries to portray her. She was warned and given notice to trim the branches. She didn’t want to trim the branches because the tree was “beautiful.” But if one of those branches came down on the house, you can be damn sure she would have filed a claim.
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!!!”
************
Yeah, that would be a tough one and it would depend on different factors, binoculars makes it more likely to be over the line, but private investigators do it all the time, whether there is a pattern, and twice is a pattern, whether I did it to the same person, whether it was my house, etc.
However, these people have a CONTRACT. if she doesn’t like it, there are other providers.
Many contracts are illegal and invalid. It is why it is best practice to seek a lawyer when someone tries to enforce a contract on you. You may *think* you know what it says but the law might have a different opinion.
“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.”
I agree, and the federal FAA has restrictions that is why even most local Law Enforcement cannot do it. Plus the fact it gives the green light for anyone to use a drone to stare in your windows if they want... What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. Having a business license and contract does not give someone immunity from law.
Plus the fact it gives the green light for anyone to use a drone to stare in your windows if they want..
**********
The insurance company is looking at the trees and the roof of the house of their insured, it is not going up and down the block looking into windows. Get a life.
Went over your head obviously.
Ask Streisand how that worked out for her when she tried to strongarm an areil photographer doing a coastal survey.
An insurance policy is a contract that transfers risk from a person or business to a third party. If you read the details of an insurance policy, you might be surprised at what kind of power you give to the insurer when they take on the risk of insuring you and/or your property.
It is common, for example, for insurance companies to file lawsuits on behalf of the insured to recover damages on claims they’ve paid out — even if the insured person does not want to file a lawsuit against a friend, neighbor, family member, etc.
My insurer posted a letter to me this year inquiring what a structure—a large wood frame shop / shed located in my backyard, was being used for. Ok, so I grew up in this house, the shop was built when I was freaking 10 years old.
Same company insured the house / property per my parents (I don’t know for how long), I liked how they treated them when we had a tornado or maybe straight line windstorm come through and blew trees down. Damaged a portion of the shop roof and busted up the west- facing fence. Paid out enough to fix the shop, new roof, fix the fence, no worries.
So why the inquiry about what the shop was being used for? It’s been a woodworking / power tool / lawn equipment / storage shed since inception. Did I forget Christmas 🎄 decorations?
Haven’t heard from them since my response a few months back. Except a letter stating they were adding an extra bit on my premium for wind / hail.
A pic from OOogle Earth showed my house with a large pen oak tree out front, vehicle in carport. I had the tree cut down in the spring, carpenter ants ate it and it had rotted out. So it weren’t there. Actually.
Or in the backyard where I’d face planted after I’d tripped over a partly-buried brick? Now that would’ve been a laugh. There she is, laid out flat in the backyard. What would that letter of inquiry have been?
Would homeowners or Medicare kick in on that one?
Just thought the initial letter was a hoot.🦉
My insurance company hasn’t inspected my roof. Ever. And trees grow over the tops of roofs all the time. As dangers go, that one is pretty minor.
Look, once satellites came into being, nothing is sacred. Once cell phones started recording everybody, expect to be recorded. All this addiction to outrage over everything is silly. In your own home, yes. Outside, no. Someone is tracking all of us all the time, listening to our phone conversations, etc. Putting trackers on our cars. On our phones. Following what we look up on the internet.
We all have to deal with it.
So you are all good with the mass spying then, so what if there is just a little more when there should be NONE? Or just good with the business cult being able to practice anal exams if they want? Are these drones clearly marked as “Insurance Drones” so the public can distinguish them from illegal drones breaking the law?
There is a line to acceptable business practices contract or not... And “carving out” legal immunities for one industry and not for others is favoritism and unfair crony business practices.
It’s sad that FR is being infiltrated by Big Brother proponents.
There’s a history of pervs scoping out private residences using drones to peep on children and women in their yards. At least once, one of the voyeurs was prosecuted successfully. This was several years ago when drones began to be common when teen girls were sunbathing in the PRIVACY of their own back yards.
It would be insane to assume that every employee monitoring drone surveillance for insurance companies is as pure as the driven snow.
Needs permission from who? Unless your house is on a private road marked as such and no trespassing anyone can drive by your house without asking anyone for permission
The fact she did not want to trim her tree away from her roof explains why insurance companies have to resort to invasive inspections.
Good Lord!
Just go on line with bing, google or any other search engine with aerial pix and you can see any house in America with multiple views, street views, over head and what is almost 3-D.
This has been the case for decades and she doesn't know that an insurance company views the house of some one that they insure.
Get a grip.
I Alternatively, they could have increased her premium or refused to cover her in lieu of doing an inspection via drone.
I agree. Amazes me that some many on this thread are OK with companies spying on them without permission.
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.