Of all the truly scummy things insurance companies do, this kinda sounds like the least worst. It seems akin to periodically checking your driving record for auto insurance.
this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
29 points (100.0% liked)
U.S. News
2373 readers
40 users here now
News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.
Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Post the original source of information as the link.
- If there is any Nazi imagery in the linked story, mark your post NSFW.
- Advocating violence is not allowed on Beehaw in general.
- If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
- Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
- Social media is not a news source.
For World News, see the News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
When I bought a new house, the insurance company sent an inspector to check the outside. Trees, roof, siding, nothing inside but the basics outside.
We had to trim a tree back because they didn't want it overhanging the roof at all. Annoying, but relatively minor. They want to minimize their payout, which makes perfect sense. Part of that is making sure the homeowner takes care of the property.
That's valid on one level, except your driving record is an objective measure of your interactions with traffic infractions. Aerial photos are very much subjective -- and the determination is being made by automated systems, which inherently can only be objective. Wrong tool for the job.
Hmmm, I'd see it more like them flying over your car and following you to see first hand your driving rather then the record. Only because they are getting the most upto date into.
Still isn't invasion of privacy because public filming. It's just dirty
IDK if I trust it to be done well in texas, or florida….
But if it wasn’t an adversarial, and respected privacy, I would really appreciate an impartial third party letting me know I have a missing roof tile, or a fire-hazard on my property.
I got lucky a few years ago. A neighbor alerted me to a broken sprinkler. Instead of a $200 water bill, it would have been much worse.
I just have fears of the insurance company banking some photo evidence, letting me keep paying them, and then 2 years later refuse to pay a claim and dust off pictures of a risk they knew of but didn’t bother to tell me about. Like we’ve know about this fire risk for years so now that you had a fire we’re not paying up.
I don’t see the problem. Sure, it’s a bit creepy, but they have the right to see what they are insuring.
Which can be done without a method that produces false positives on reasons to terminate coverage. Part of the premium is them doing due diligence. Satellite photos are not that.
Sure, come inspect the house once a year. I've no issue with that. Some sort of "AI" deciding it doesn't like your roof from a photo? Yeah, no.
They should be required to do an in-person inspection before rescinding coverage. Then, they could use AI to decide where the inspection isn't needed, saving money... but of course they're greedy and don't want to do that.
My landlords insurance sends an actual person to do a check from the sidewalk every year or so.
FL insurers do inspections and require repairs....
Great! When Austin moves to Florida, that will be relevant.