Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
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.
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.