Furious homeowner says insurer secretly monitored her home (with aerial drones) and then refused renewal

DAILYMAIL.COM ^ | 3 September 2025 | TILLY ARMSTRONG,

[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.

[CodeToad]

So, you are claiming a conspiracy to commit criminal act. Gotcha.

[bert]

What right to privacy?

Google street view shows your house in great detail

Google Earth shows you house from above in perfect detail

Realtor drone photos show the neighborhood and probably her house exactly as it is.

[FreedomNotSafety]

The drone is how they knew about the tree limb.

[Openurmind]

How about speaking out against it instead of just rolling over like rest of the brainwashed herd... You know it is wrong... Or do you? Or is just that anything goes to make that one more penny?

[yldstrk]

I don’t think it is wrong for the insurance company to check on the insured structure with a drone. I don’t think it is wrong for a store to have closed circuit tv. I don’t think it is wrong for people to film other people acting like idiots.

I do think it is wrong to set up cameras in homes. But technology today can record stuff from space.

[Mouton]

You are wrong on all accounts. You can’t even define what a “portion” is.

First of all, no one can define what a portion is because it has not been defined by the courts. For the rest, I suggest you read these decisions:

[i] Drennen v. County of Ventura, 38 Cal. App. 3d 84 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1974).

[ii] Lacey v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 551 (Ct. Cl. 1979).

[iii] Powell v. United States, 1 Cl. Ct. 669 (Cl. Ct. 1983).

[iv] Hero Lands Co. v. United States, 1 Cl. Ct. 102 (Cl. Ct. 1983).

[v] Newark v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 750 (D.N.J. 1958).

[vi] Id.

[vii] Persyn v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 187, 195 (Fed. Cl. 1995).

[viii] United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1946).

[ix] Lacey v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 551 (Ct. Cl. 1979).

[x] Guith v. Consumers Power Co., 36 F. Supp. 21 (D. Mich. 1940).

[xi] Id.

[xii] Long v. Charlotte, 306 N.C. 187 (N.C. 1982).

[xiii] Sneed v. County of Riverside, 218 Cal. App. 2d 205 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1963).

[xiv] Drennen v. County of Ventura, 38 Cal. App. 3d 84, 88 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1974).

[xv] Twitty v. State, 85 N.C. App. 42, 53 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987).

Then get back to me. I may be off a bit on some, but not to the degree of “all accounts”.

Thanks for playing

[Ultra Sonic 007]

So if they needed a drone to find out about the tree limb, it certainly wasn’t publicly viewable from outside the property.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "You are not a real California NGO, unless you and your friends family are not stealing from it for salaries, fake travel expenses and other bennies."

Were I "king of the forest," I would decree NO non-profits could exist unless 90 percent of all assets / donations were spent on doing a demonstrable social good. Then I would be marked for elimination, as so many fat cats live off them.

[af_vet_1981]

So, you are claiming a conspiracy to commit criminal act. Gotcha.

Not that anyone would willingly admit to defrauding the government with respect to social security or disability insurance, not to mention private insurance; neither do people readily admit to conspiracy to shoplift, loot stores, burgle homes, etc. Carjacking is imaginary.

Yes, there is a conspiracy to lie, cheat, and steal.

The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?

[FreedomNotSafety]

Doesn’t matter. The insurance contract would have a clause saying they can inspect the property. It would also have a clause saying the howmeownernafeee to maintain their property. If the drone was at a high enough altitude permission isn’t needed.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

The insurance contract would have a clause saying they can inspect the property.

Homeowners also have a right to refuse those inspections at their own risk, so the inspectors would only have access to what they could see publicly from the property boundary.

It would also have a clause saying the howmeownernafeee to maintain their property.

Whether or not retaining a particular tree is "not maintaining their property" is a matter of perspective.

If the drone was at a high enough altitude permission isn’t needed.

The FAA already has a 400 foot limitation for drone operations. Furthermore, past precedent indicates that property owners possess rights against "unwanted aerial invasions in that space that would “subtract from the owner’s full enjoyment of the property.”" And this isn't even getting into complications introduced by local zoning/privacy laws.

So if the inspectors did not get permission to use the drone over the property, there's a better than even chance that they got those images illegally.

But who knows, maybe the use of drones is now being included in insurance contracts...

[Alberta's Child]

And in the absence of a provision in an insurance policy, the use of drones by insurance companies would most likely be covered under state laws.

I found this interesting article on the subject (the emphasis in the cited item is mine):

Your Insurance Company May Be Using A Drone To Spy On Your Property From The Air

Candise Shanbron, managing partner of Cernitz Law, says there are a variety of federal, state and local laws regarding the use of drones which in some cases prohibit drone users from conducting surveillance that would violate a reasonable expectation of privacy without the property owner’s consent. However, she notes that there are often exceptions for licensed business entities that have a legitimate interest in the property -- which would typically include insurance companies and insurance adjusters.

For what it's worth ... it seems to be far more common for insurance companies to use drones for property inspections in the claims process, not for establishing conditions related to insurability and premiums.

I also find it interesting that most of the complaints cited in articles like these come from homeowners who only object to the drone usage not due to privacy concerns, but because the drones help the insurance company find things that affect the insurability and/or the premiums on the property.