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.
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...