Insights
Publications

The FAA Clears Drones For Take-Off: How’s Your Safety Net?

9/1/2016 Articles

Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles, have found a wide and expanding commercial market as they have become cheaper to buy and easier to use. Practical applications abound: Farmers can efficiently survey wide expanses of crops and related infrastructure; photojournalists can gain new access and perspectives on events; and insurance companies can quickly survey sites after casualty events. Until recently, however, permanent rules regarding their safe operation were lacking.

On Aug. 29, the Federal Aviation Administration’s long-awaited regulations for drones weighing 55 pounds or less went into effect, replacing the temporary regulations that commercial drones have been operating under for years. The new rules retain most of the salient safety features as before but, anticipating new technologies and uses, the FAA also built in flexibility by providing for a waiver of most of the new rules if a case can be made.

According to the new requirements, drones must be under line-of-sight control, remain less than 400 feet off the ground, and cannot fly above people not involved in operating them. They may carry objects for hire provided the total weight still does not exceed 55 pounds. The remote pilot in command must conduct a pre-flight inspection, and may not fly the drone in certain airspaces, such as near airports.

Of these, line-of-sight control remains the single most important limitation on drone operation—it precludes Amazon from delivering packages by drone, for example. This may be the area where, as technology develops, the FAA will be pressed to grant waivers to test more indirect or autonomous control features.

Perhaps the most significant change is the relaxed requirement for becoming certified to pilot a commercial drone. Previously, an operator had to have a pilot’s license or go through a process to gain a 333 exemption. Now, an operator who meets the minimum age of 16 can become certified by passing an aeronautical knowledge test and a TSA screening.

Notably, the FAA considered but did not adopt a mandatory insurance requirement. Nevertheless, drone insurance has been available since drone use became more common and can be relatively inexpensive. Insurers have quoted as little as $1,000 to 2,000 per year for $1 million in liability limits plus physical damage coverage for a common $2,000 drone. The premiums vary with factors such as the cost and type of drone being operated, how it will be used, the deductible, and qualifications of the pilot. Currently, insurers may offer discounts for more highly trained and experienced pilots. It remains to be seen whether insurers will charge higher premiums for pilots being certified under the new, relaxed standards.

It is difficult to find coverage for most drone risks under the Insurance Services Office (ISO) standard commercial general liability (CGL) policy. The standard exclusions include one for bodily injury and property damage “arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured.” As the FAA defines a drone to be a type of aircraft, an insured should not count on coverage under a standard CGL policy for bodily injury or property damage caused by a drone. It might be possible, on the other hand, to find coverage for an invasion of privacy claim, a concern as drones buzz over private property or past windows. The standard definition of “personal and advertising injury” includes “oral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.”

ISO first responded to the emerging use of drones by introducing endorsements that clearly disclaimed any coverage for drone risks under a CGL policy. They did, however, also offer endorsements extending coverage for bodily injury and property damage, or for personal and advertising injury, or both. It is not clear, though, how well-prepared general liability insurers are to underwrite these risks.

Aviation policies adapted specifically for drones have long been available. In addition, ISO recently introduced its own stand-alone drone insurance policy that adds features of its standard CGL policy to the structure of an aircraft form.

The aircraft forms provide a broad grant of coverage for bodily injury or property damage liability, including a duty to defend. Coverage typically extends only to scheduled aircraft, and may also designate insured uses and pilots. Notable common exclusions extend to the insured’s own employees or property, for loss or damage to the drone itself, and for noise or other pollution unless caused by a drone crash or collision. Other exclusions and conditions vary. For example, a London aircraft form expressly bars coverage if the drone is not operated by the designated pilot or in accordance with FAA rules. The ISO form is silent on these issues.

Coverage for invasion of privacy claims may require a separate endorsement and premium. The ISO form only extends to bodily injury and property damage claims, and the London form expressly excludes such claims.

The policies also provide what in aircraft parlance is called “hull” coverage, or coverage for damage to the aircraft or drone itself. This coverage may be written on an agreed value basis, and may extend to theft or disappearance. Other coverages pertaining to cargo attached to the drone may also be included. Again, the language is not uniform and differences in wording may become relevant depending on the use of the drone.

The new FAA drone regulations do not apply to the non-commercial, or “hobbyist,” operation of drones. Congress, in fact, prohibited the FAA from going beyond existing rules so long as the drone is no more than 55 pounds, is under line of sight control, does not interfere with manned aircraft, and is operated “in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization.” (The FAA declined to clarify what this last requirement means.)

For the hobbyist, coverage may be available under a homeowners policy, at least for bodily injury or property damage claims. The standard homeowners policy excludes coverage for aircraft risks but typically excepts from that exclusion a “model or hobby aircraft.” Homeowners policies vary more widely as to whether they cover invasion of privacy claims. 

Reprinted with permission from Risk Management Magazine. Copyright 2016 RIMS, Inc. All rights reserved. You can read the article on Risk Management‘s website at FAA Clears Drones for Takeoff

Firm Highlights

News

In Novel Case, Insurer Sues Own Law Firm After Data Breach

Tyler Gerking was quoted in the Law360 article "In Novel Case, Insurer Sues Own Law Firm After Data Breach." In the article Tyler said, "This case shows some of the hazards that all companies face...

Read More
News

Cyber Insurance Demand Heats Up As COVID-19 Hacks Rise

Tyler Gerking spoke to Law360 for the article "Cyber Insurance Demand Heats Up As COVID-19 Hacks Rise." As far as insurance coverage being available for fines and penalties that arise out of privacy and data security laws such as...

Read More
Publication

Business Interruption Coverage for the Coronavirus (COVID-19)

The coronavirus (COVID-19) has already caused severe disruption to the economy. In the U.S., governmental entities as well as the private sector are implementing more and more drastic measures to respond to the coronavirus...

Read More
Publication

Time to Check Your Cyber Insurance

Now that the CCPA is in effect, some companies will need to revise their policies. The cyber insurance markets are beginning to adapt to the new California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which went into...

Read More
Publication

Directors & Officers Liability Issues and the Coronavirus: Is That a “Thing”?

Over the last few weeks we have seen a number of informative articles discussing the crucial issue of coverage for business interruption claims arising out of government shutdowns of businesses to inhibit the spread...

Read More
News

Insurers Challenged for Denying Business-Interruption Coverage During Coronavirus Economic Lockdown

Insurance recovery partner Ray Sheen commented in the North Bay Business Journal article, "Insurers Challenged for Denying Business-Interruption Coverage During Coronavirus Economic Lockdown." Read the article, here .

Read More
News

Calif. Justices Set Montrose's Excess Enviro Coverage Path

Insurance recovery partner Mary McCutcheon commented on the California Supreme Court's decision in the Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County case. In the article, Mary noted that although...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys, Practices Recognized by Chambers USA 2020

SAN FRANCISCO, April 23, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel announces that Chambers USA has recognized 12 lawyers and five practice areas in the legal directory’s 2020 edition. Individual Rankings: Tyler Gerking – Insurance: Policyholders...

Read More
Publication

COVID-19 Exposure and GL Coverage: Issues for Personal Injury Claims

Though much of the conversation regarding insurance coverage for COVID-19-related losses has focused on the potential for business interruption-type coverage (see prior discussion  here ), insureds should not overlook the potential that COVID risks...

Read More
Publication

D&O Liability Insurance in a Time of Financial Uncertainty

As companies scramble to mitigate losses arising from government shelter-in-place directives intended to halt the spread of the COVID-19 virus, the insurance world has focused on business interruption coverage disputes and lawsuits.  But if...

Read More