Insurers use aerial imaging to assess property risks more accurately and efficiently. In recent months, legislators have voiced concerns about insurers’ use of aerial imaging in underwriting and have introduced bills to protect consumers from potential misuse. High-resolution images captured by satellites, drones, or planes allow insurers to evaluate factors such as roof condition, property maintenance, vegetation overgrowth, and proximity to hazards like wildfire zones without needing an in-person inspection. This technology enhances risk modeling and can streamline the underwriting process by providing timely, objective data. However, its use raises privacy concerns and has prompted legislative scrutiny, such as California’s AB 75 by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon and SB 260 by Senator Aisha Wahab.
AB 75 mandates that admitted insurers notify policyholders in their annual renewal documents that unmanned aircraft may be used to capture aerial images of insured properties. Insurers must provide these images upon request and include instructions on how policyholders can make such requests. Additionally, the bill created incredibly cumbersome requirements surrounding a new “right to cure” when deficiencies on a property are identified. This legislation aims to enhance transparency and communication between insurers and policyholders regarding the use of aerial imagery in property assessments. However, as currently drafted, AB 75 is unworkable and threatens to increase costs and reduce the number of policies insurers can write each year.
SB 260 is similar to Assemblymember Calderon’s bill in that is currently requires a 30-day prenotification to consumers before aerial imaging can be used, allows access to the photos, and creates requirements on insurers to delete images after a time certain, and establishes a remediation process. However, Senator Wahab has engaged in active conversations with the industry and is considering substantial amendments to improve the bill.
PIFC, in collaboration with other industry trade associations, recognizes that the intent of the bills and their authors is to enhance transparency. PIFC lobbyists have been actively engaging with the author’s offices and committee staff to support greater consumer clarity while ensuring the bills can be workable from an implementation standpoint.
Click Here to Read the Industry Oppose Unless Amended letter for AB 75.
