Journal Title
Arizona Law Journal of Emerging Technologies
Volume
8
Issue
1
First Page
i
Document Type
Article
Publication Information
2025
Abstract
Many people do not own their homes outright-they finance the purchase of their home by taking out a mortgage against it. This typically means that the homeowner is contractually obligated to do a number of things-like pay real property taxes, keep the property in good condition, and keep it insured, even as prices skyrocket. But even worse, the pool of providers is materially shrinking with some insurers now either not writing or limiting new policies or tightening underwriting standards in some markets. Insurance companies pull out of markets because they cannot make enough money in those markets to be profitable. So, some states-notably California-have begun removing some of the regulatory limitations that affect how and when insurance companies can raise premiums. This is a big issue, and there are a lot of factors at play. One relatively minor, but related, issue is how insurance companies are assessing the potential costs and risks associated with their decisions to drop insured parties-and, in particular, how some companies are starting to use drone surveillance to monitor customers and reassess their risk profiles. As discussed in this article, it is clear that insurance companies are doing this. Of course, this is not so much an issue of insurance companies dropping whole geographic areas of coverage, but it is relevant in that it relates to the ability of those who need property insurance to secure that coverage. In particular, it is problematic, I think, because it runs afoul of a variety of privacy laws and protections laced into American common law and various state constitutional provisions.
The difficulty is acute, not because it is "bad" or "undesirable" for insurance companies to assess, reassess, and non-renew clients, but simply because this specific, new tool of the insurance industry violates rights and protections that are meant to ensure human dignity. These rights and protections effectively prevent the kinds of wrong-headed and misguided decisions that these companies are liable to make. The potential claims this activity gives rise to are discussed in Part III. Insurance companies do have a facially appealing defense because most insurance contracts seem to permit this kind of inspection (or, perhaps, something akin to it). However, as Part IV explains, this "defense" is unavailing for traditional public policy reasons, especially given the novel, and frankly brazen, nature of drone technology to observe people in their most private arena, their home. The conclusion identifies that this sort of activity is impermissible under the current law—or is at least arguably impermissible given the application of existing law to this new sort of activity. Simply put, the law never contemplated enormous commercial enterprises using new technology to physically spy on people in the safety of their own homes. Given this, consumers should stand up for their rights and push back on any activity of this sort.
Recommended Citation
Chad J. Pomeroy, Consumer Claims for Insurance Company Drone Surveillance, 8 Ariz. L.J. Emerging Tech. i (2024-2025).