FAA Allows AIG To Use Drones For Insurance Inspections

An anonymous reader writes with news that AIG is the latest insurance company given permission by the FAA to use drones for inspections. "The Federal Aviation Administration has been rather stingy when it comes to giving companies the OK to test, let alone employ, drones. After getting permission this week, AIG joins State Farm and USAA as insurance providers with exemptions that allow them to use the UAVs to perform tasks that are risky to regular folks — things like roof inspections after a major storm. In addition to keeping its inspectors safe, the company says drones will speed up the claims process, which means its customers will, in theory, get paid faster. 'UAVs can help accelerate surveys of disaster areas with high resolution images for faster claims handling, risk assessment, and payments,' the news release explains. 'They can also quickly and safely reach areas that could be dangerous or inaccessible for manual inspection, and they provide richer information about properties, structures, and claim events.'"

Comments

Seems reasonable

[grimmjeeper]

At first blush, this exemption seems reasonable. I can see how insurance companies can make use of drones in their business to speed up work and to improve safety.

I haven't thought of ways this can be abused and what not. Any reasons why this would be a bad idea?

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Any reasons why this would be a bad idea?

Insurance companies would probably confuse whose destroyed lot was whose, and refuse to pay out.

Re:Seems reasonable

[grimmjeeper]

They don't need a drone to do that.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Skidborg]

Drones being used for spying on other kinds of insurance claims. Guy with an "injured" back gets caught chopping wood by flying spies? No more money for him.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The insurance company or possibly the individual operator in case of gross negligence.
2) It is part of a claim. If denied it can be contested and this is evidence just like the adjustor walking around and saying what he was is evidence at whatever arbitration hearing.
3) The inspector is going to be there running the drone. They can go inside and look at the water stained ceiling. This is so they don't have to risk their life walking around on a potentially unstable roof. Seriously, ladders and falls kill many people every year.

This is a good thing. You call someone to look at your roof and they can use a machine to do it instead of risking their life.

Re:Seems reasonable

[grimmjeeper]

1. Because if said drone falls and hits someone, who has to pay? The insurance company (who will simply pass it onto customers by raising rates) or the home owner whose house was being inspected (AIG: "The accident wouldn't have happened if John Smith didn't file a claim in the first place")?

The same can be said for an agent driving a company car or doing anything else while working on the clock. I'm not sure how a drone would be handled differently than anything else the agents of the company do.

2. Do customers have a right to view/context said drone footage? People don't exactly record everything they do in a post-disaster situation so if the insurance company claims, "we saw you with a chainsaw, how do we know you didn't do the damage yourself?" and you can't remember the what's and why's, you're screwed.

That's a legit concern. Finding new ways of denying coverage is probably a high priority to some people in the industry.

On the other hand, having more picture and video footage will legitimately help them reduce fraud.

Where will the equilibrium point end up? Hard to say. But this is a legitimate point.

3. How much information can they get with those drones? For obvious damage, yeah, drones are great. But for more subtle damage, like water damage, you NEED a human inspector there. (If the roof has enough water damage, it may not be legally habitable.)

I don't think they're planning on just flying a drone over to your house for a routine damage inspection in place of a human being. I think it's more along the line of an agent keeping a drone in the back of the car so they can fly it around and inspect your roof without having to climb up a ladder. Or perhaps fly around an area where storm/flooding damage has made the specific area unsafe (i.e. collapsed house, washed out bridge with a flooded stream, etc.).

But yeah, perhaps they will just zip a drone around and offer you a minimal payment rather than doing real inspection work. I could see some companies trying to pull that.

Re:Seems reasonable

[grimmjeeper]

And reducing fraud is a bad thing.... why?

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Because if said drone falls and hits someone, who has to pay?

The assumption is that someone being seriously injured by a falling drone is less likely than an appraiser falling off a damaged roof. Sounds like a reasonable assumption to me.

Re:Seems reasonable

[sexconker]

Because the ease of using drones allows them to spy on and harass everyone, including those with valid claims, those who live in the same house / nearby but aren't involved in the claim, etc.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Skidborg]

Remember the lady who had her insurance coverage for depression revoked because she was caught smiling in a facebook photo?

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see it as bad, curbing fraud is definitely good but it is effectively sanctioning the use of drones to spy on people for (insert reason). While saying that Search and Rescue teams can't use drones because apparently they aren't corporations? Or that activist groups can't use drones to survey for illegal dumping, etc.

What they need to do is stop trying to micromanage drones because they are terrible at it, people have been using "drones" since they where called RC helicopters for pretty much exactly what they are using "drones" for today. Only now it is suddenly being blocked by new FAA regulations that really don't seem to have any rhyme or reason unless you have enough money to classify you as a special interest.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Etherwalk]

And reducing fraud is a bad thing.... why?

Because it's not always fraud.

There are a lot of people who really are disabled but who are periodically able to do more serious activities despite the disability, or who try to get better by doing such activities. When an insurance company or benefits arm of the government sees that, they often try to take benefits away. It creates perverse incentives to not try to get better, and it results in disabled people being hurt because they're trying to get better.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Em Adespoton]

This is a good thing. You call someone to look at your roof and they can use a machine to do it instead of risking their life.

Not to mention: using a drone, they're using contactless observation. If an inspector damages your property while inspecting, that costs everyone. A drone shouldn't be causing property damage.

Re:Seems reasonable

[jedidiah]

Neither should a competent contractor or adjuster.

This is something that seems deceptively useful but I suspect that it will be less effective than everyone thinks. Plus someone still has to operate it and do so competently to at least succeed in doing a poor job at it.

Re:Seems reasonable

[grimmjeeper]

They already do that having investigators following you around. Drones won't change that.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

trust me as an AS sufferer, this has always been the case. Somedays are good somedays are bad. And insurance wants to make a profit. Pure and simple. If they negate a policy, they will negate it (however many hands are underneath it, lol). If they can pay as little possible, make no mistake, they will.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes it easier for the Republican-ruled insurance crooks to refuse to pay claims because of technical problems with their drones. For example, a cop with USAA insurance ran a redlight and ran up onto a sidewalk then through a wall hit me as I was sitting at my desk. USAA refused to pay because their agent's camera didn't work. They claimed the SD card quit. If those Republicans can use something as reliable as an SD card as a legal reason to refuse to pay a claim, imagine how many fewer claims they'll have to pay after they depend on drones that are much more complicated. Except to never collect on a claim again after this goes through. USAA hates us and wants us to die.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

She claimed to be so disabled she couldn't work, then posted pictures of herself partying, vacationing, and generally having a good time.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Livius]

Because it's not always fraud.

Not always. But sometimes. Proof matters.

Re:Seems reasonable

[jedidiah]

...or people that just think they are better and end up regretting their actions the next morning.

American workers are constantly encouraged to push themselves past sensible physical limits and to ignore genuine health and safety concerns.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't thought of ways this can be abused and what not. Any reasons why this would be a bad idea?

Often not all damage is visible from the outside. I have seen a building where the roof didn't look too bad from the outside, but when you actually went inside a lot of the structural supports were visibly damaged to the point it made me uncomfortable to be there.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Livius]

But *not* working....

Re:Seems reasonable

[dougmc]

The FAA doesn't really concern itself with "privacy", which is the primary problem that people have with these so called "drones" -- the FAA's concern is "safety".

And yet they also know that perfect safety is a pipe dream, and so they try to find a balance between safety and utility, and if they err, they try to err on the side of safety. And in the case of unmanned aircraft, they have erred *massively* on the side of safety so far.

The safety concerns of this are very small, and so there's really no reason for them not to do this, and I'm glad they're giving the permits -- it shows that they are finally relaxing their grip somewhat.

Now, if they had not permitted this, then the insurance company's other options are --

-- ladders (probably more dangerous than the R/C aircraft)
-- cameras on a long stick (probably works well enough for one story buildings, maybe not taller ones)
-- manned aircraft (expensive, probably more dangerous than the R/C aircraft)
-- camera on a kite (as dangerous as the R/C aircraft, often not practical, and the FCC may prohibit this as well)

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

AIG is the FUCKING champion of insurance fraud. They frauded the US out of AT LEAST 750 Billion dollars in 2008 alone!!!! How quickly you all forgot.

Re:Seems reasonable

[dougmc]

I wonder what restrictions the FAA put on these insurance companies ... like what sort of training do their pilots require?

I imagine they didn't just leave it up to the insurance company, but probably mandated a certain level of training. I know there was talk of requiring a full pilot's license, perhaps a commercial one, for such things.

I don't know if an FAA unmanned aircraft endorsement exists, or they might require a rotorcraft (helicopter) endorsement for your typical quadcopter. Not that all manned aircraft piloting skills apply directly to a model, but certainly a full scale pilot has a leg up on somebody with no experience at all.

And that said, requiring such a certification is way overkill, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Whatever the rules are, I'd expect the insurance companies to make sure that whomever operated these was sufficiently skilled to do so competently, either by teaching them to fly the old fashioned way or by providing aircraft that are automated enough that they don't really do much except tell it where to go.

Re:Seems reasonable

[sexconker]

Drones make it more ubiquitous, more automated, more invasive, and allow for more collateral targets.

Re:Seems reasonable

[John.Banister]

A drone that only carries a camera can weigh a lot less than a package delivery drone, so the FAA may be a little bit less concerned about what happens if one falls on you (until someone gets seriously injured by that, at least).

Re:Seems reasonable

[snarfies]

Actual former insurance adjuster here - automobile property damage claims. I would think a drone would be sufficient for initial appraisals.

Here's how it works for auto claims - an appraiser makes a fairly cursory initial inspection of VISIBLE damage. They don't (usually) pop the hood, they don't (usually) lift the car up. They walk around the car wherever it is parked, note down what they see, and do an initial estimate.

Now, maybe four times out of five, when the actual repair work is done, additional damage is found. Like, the mechanic pops off the old bumper and finds some crushed pins, something like this. A supplemental appraisal is then generated - that's where you get the actual, and most likely final cost of the repair work. I've seen cases where a third supplement gets generated, but that was fairly uncommon in my experience.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Em Adespoton]

Also, these guys are following the "line of sight" rule -- the pilot is in visual contact with the drone at all times. This means that there's no ambiguity as to who's at fault should something go wrong.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Etherwalk]

Because it's not always fraud.

Not always. But sometimes. Proof matters.

Proof matters if you're dealing with an impartial evaluation that understands more about a person's life than one photograph. If you are perceptive and spend several days with a person in their ordinary life, for example, you understand a lot more than any jury or claims evaluator ever will.

There are people on disability who shouldn't be.

I know people who are on one kind of disability or another who absolutely could do certain kinds of jobs and should, but any clinical evaluation is going to say they're unable to. One person's brain basically shuts down when dealing with certain kinds of problems--some strange sort of situational aphasia, maybe--but they can do plenty of useful tasks and could almost certainly hold the right kind of job.

I also know people who the system continually tries to get fired who have good days and bad days, who don't get disability.

I know veteran's who should get disability and don't.

And I've heard of veterans who get disability and shouldn't.

And I know other people who would no way in hell ever be able to hold a job--they can't even go to the toilet without help.

There are a *lot* of cases out there. Understanding any individual case takes more than a photograph of them smiling or swinging an axe. As scientists, we understand that anecdotal evidence is the least reliable kind. But to a jury or claims adjuster or functionary, anecdotal evidence is pretty much the only kind that matters. It gives you drama. It gives you the story. Decisions are made on pathos, not logic--on emotion, not reason.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Livius]

Both quality and quantity of proof matter.

First for systemd!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones powered by systemd!!

Re: First for systemd!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh god...

Re:First for systemd!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones powered by systemd!!

That's not funny. They probably will be.

profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only can they do their jobs faster, but cheaper, which mean rates will come down.

Or profits will go up.

Guess which?

Re:profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only can they do their jobs faster, but cheaper, which mean rates will come down.

Or profits will go up.

Guess which?

Uh... Rates come down?

Ya, pretty good idea overall

[Sycraft-fu]

In general things involving roof inspection are well suited to be done by drone. While there still are times you'd need to put a person on the roof, a drone with a high rez camera can get you the information you need in most cases. Safer, and also faster.

If they weren't so expensive I'd love to have one for my own use for that purpose. I live in a second story condo and access to the roof is a problem (you need a really big ladder). I'd love to be able to fly a drone up to check for debris occluding vents, damage to my A/C, etc.

Re:Ya, pretty good idea overall

[ScentCone]

If they weren't so expensive I'd love to have one for my own use for that purpose.

DJI just announced, and will shortly be shipping v3 of their very popular Phantom platform. There are going to be a LOT of people itchy to move to that unit for one reason or another. You should be able to get hold of a gently used v2 for very little by this summer. Cheapie cheap cheap.

Re:Ya, pretty good idea overall

[Em Adespoton]

Equipping these with spread-spectrum cameras would also be great -- check for leaks/weak spots by checking the infra-red, etc.

Re:Ya, pretty good idea overall

[Sycraft-fu]

For this use I'd need one with realtime video capability since it would be non-line of sight operation. Hence more cost. Since it is mostly just me wanting to check on things, not worth it.

If there is an actual problem, I have professionals look at it.

Re:Ya, pretty good idea overall

[Anonymous Coward]

Hubsan X4 FPV is less than $200 on Amazon and will do what you need.

The same FAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

IS this the same FAA that was actively fining drones being used for Search and Rescue, but its OK for an insurance agency to use them to survey a disaster area to determine how little they can possibly get away with paying..... priorities!

Re:The same FAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Search and rescue operations usually don't have a lot of spare cash available for bribes.

FAA - Too old and slow

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA is so old and slow, it is literally costing the US money. There are millions of legitimate uses of drones that should require no regulation at all. Not flying it over a group of people or your neighbors house, and keeping under about 200 feet AGL, go for it.

They have also destroyed small aircraft aviation and made them unsafe by creating such heavy regulations that not even Cessna could afford to bring a modern safe aircraft to market. Sport planes are booming if you have $150k, but only because they finally created sane regulations.

These assholes took

[Anonymous Coward]

a decade to figure out if opening a spaceport or allowing virgin galactic tourist rides but approve this shit in no time. Wow, what a great FAA we have...

NEWS FLASH SPARKY!

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't like being watched...even when they aren't breaking the law. Even when its legal and your out in the open, I weep for UK people with cameras stuck in every fucking corner. This is some orwellian bullshit people have painted themselves into.

All at the idea of fear and safety...what is the spy glass going to protect you from? The only thing its going to do is incriminate (you, them, whoever)...because what it was designed to do.

Speed up

[manu0601]

They say it will speed up they pay process. It will also speed up the reason-for-not-paying process.

Re:Speed up

[jklovanc]

Which would then speed up the appeal process. A lack of decision is the same as a denial of coverage. In both cases the policy holder gets no money.

But of course!

[fustakrakich]

AIG and Goldman Sachs will get anything they want from the government. I mean, what the hell, they own it!

Noise

[Sqreater]

Watch the noise level in our communities go through the roof as these devices become commonly used by business, government, and police. When you see drones in videos you seldom have audio.

Re:Noise

[HornWumpus]

Just wait until I finish my quad pulse jet!

Not a problem

[tompaulco]

As long as the drones are FAA certified and the operators are properly certificated and obey all of the FARs, including minimum altitudes and separation from buildings, people, and other aircraft, then I don't have an issue with it.