Nobody but nobody enjoys reading an insurance policy.\u00a0Companies like GEICO know that and make effective commercials which rely on humor. Indeed famed\u00a0actor Dennis Quaid is on a “mission to make insurance interesting” in his TV commercials for Esurance. Photographers and producers are no different than other people\/businesses who pay for\u00a0insurance coverage in that the odds are only about 99% that they never read the policy they pay for every month.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
It is not exactly breaking news to say that the use of drones by photographers, location scouts, filmmakers, producers etc has increased exponentially.\u00a0They falsely assume that they are insured for such use or just never think about whether they have insurance coverage for specifically drone related personal injuries or property damage.\u00a0 Most typical policies do not cover damages resulting for the use of drones.\u00a0You as a policy holder must request , obtain and pay for such coverage. If not, you may be facing financial ruin if you have a drone fly a muck (or any other brand of drone).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Submitted for your consideration and as a warning, a slice of real life:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
A California federal court judge has ruled that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. doesn\u2019t have to defend or indemnify a photography company in a lawsuit alleging that its drone blinded a wedding guest in one eye.\u00a0This despite the fact that the photo company was “insured”.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The wedding photography company\u2019s photographer was using a drone which allegedly blinded a guest by hitting the guest’s eye.\u00a0Yeah, ouch! The photography company put in a claim with its own insurance company seeking insurance coverage for the claim after the injured party, not surprisingly,made one. Insurance coverage typically means that the insured’s company BOTH pays for “your” lawyer, all defense costs AND any settlement or judgment obtained against the insured person\/company (“you”). That\u2019s why we have insurance.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The insurance company claimed the drone injuries were specifically\u00a0excluded<\/strong>\u00a0from coverage by the insurance policy purchased by the photo company.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n The case boiled down to what is the definition of an “aircraft”. There was no clear definition of the term in the policy. U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson granted Philadelphia Indemnity\u2019s motion for summary judgment,finding that policyholder was\u00a0not entitled to coverag<\/em>e. The court also ruled that the policyholder had to pay back to the insurance company over$17,000 it had already spent defending the case. And that amount we can safely assume is just the start of some major costs.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Judge Anderson held, that while\u00a0 \u201caircraft\u201d is not specifically defined in the insurance policy exclusions, the ordinary definition of the word clearly includes drones. \u201cHere, Ms. Kamboj was injured when a drone, hovering at eye level and operated by defendant Satyam Sukhwal, came into contact with her eye,\u201d\u00a0 \u201cA drone, as a \u2018vehicle \u2026 for traveling through the air\u2019 is an aircraft under the term\u2019s ordinary and plain definition.\u201d\u00a0 ruled the judge.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n The insurance company\u00a0moved for summary judgment (so it could get out of the case immediately) in November based on the “aircraft exclusions”.\u00a0 Judge Anderson used the Merriam-Webster dictionary,which defines the term “aircraft” as a \u201cvehicle (such as an airplane or balloon) for traveling through the air.\u201d That ordinary definition \u201cdoes not require the carrying of passengers or cargo,\u201d the judge added. Kinda hard to argue that a drone does\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0travel in\/on the air.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \u201cAdditionally, that a drone is unmanned and operated remotely does not make it any less of an aircraft,\u201d Judge Anderson wrote.\u00a0 We note that drones operated out of FL, TX and MO run bombing missions and reconnaissance for the military thousands of miles from America’s shores in Africa the Middle East and Asia daily. Back to the Judge, \u201cBecause the claim here is not even potentially covered by the policy, the duty to defend never arose in the first instance and [Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance] is entitled to reimbursement of its costs incurred while defending the state court action and any indemnity paid,\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n