ISO Announces Implementation of Unmanned Aircraft Endorsements

On Thursday September 24, 2015, an ISO Ad Hoc Drones Property Panel meeting discussed the topic of drones and their potential impact on various property lines of business. The agenda and minutes can be viewed in ISO Circulars AM-AG-2015-001 and AM-AG-2015-002, respectively.

On Friday, January 30, 2015, ISO announced the June 2015 implementation, in a majority of jurisdictions, of a suite of optional endorsements addressing liability exposures related to drones. The endorsements will be available for use with ISO's Commercial General Liability and Commercial Liability Umbrella/Excess programs and can be viewed in ISO Implementation/Approval Circulars LI-GL-2015-011; LI-GL-2015-027; LI-GL-2015-057 (Forms) and LI-GL-2015-012; LI-GL-2015-028; LI-GL-2015-060(Rules).

Advisory Sample Notice to Policyholders for the Multistate Unmanned Aircraft Endorsement is available at LI-GL-2015-056.

Previous ISO General Liability Panel (GLP) teleconference agendas and minutes addressing drones can be viewed in the following ISO Circulars: June 16, 2014 Teleconference Agenda:AM-GL-2014-001 and Minutes:AM-GL-2014-002; September 9, 2014 Teleconference Agenda: AM-GL-2014-003 and Minutes: AM-GL-2014-004.

On Friday November 21, 2014, an ISO Businessowners panel meeting discussed the topic of drones and their potential impact on Businessowners insurance. The agenda and minutes can be viewed in ISO CircularsAM-BP-2014-003 and AM-BP-2014-004, respectively.

On Tuesday October 7, 2014, an ISO Personal Property Panel (PPP) discussed the topic of drones, specifically model or hobby aircraft, potential related exposures, and their potential impact on Homeowners and Dwelling Property insurance. The agenda can be viewed in ISO Circulars AM-DL-2014-004, AM-DP-2014-004, AM-HO-2014-004, AM-PM-2014-004 and AM-WT-2014-004. The minutes can be viewed in ISO CircularsAM-DL-2014-005, AM-DP-2014-005, AM-HO-2014-005, AM-PM-2014-005 and AM-WT-2014-005.

Visit ISO's Drone Research Center for more information.

View ISO's white paper on drones: Exploring Drones: How Unmanned Aircraft Could Change The Way We Live Work and Think About Risk.

According to an August 2015 Los Angeles Times report, legislators in the California state Assembly passed a bill that “would make flying a drone less than 350 feet above private property without consent a trespass violation.” The bill does not hold the drone manufacturer liable, only the operator of the drone at the time of alleged trespass. In September 2015 Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, reportedly on the grounds that it would lead to an excessive amount of litigation. Governor Brown explained in a statement that the bill "could expose the occasional hobbyist and the FAA-approved commercial user alike to burdensome litigation and new causes of action." Two other bills have reportedly passed the California Senate and Assembly. SB 170 would prohibit flying a drone over a prison or county jail, excepting prison employees. SB 271 would make it illegal to fly a drone below 350 feet over a kindergarten or grade 12 schools during school hours without express permission of the principal. And after five drones reportedly hampered efforts to put out a wildfire in San Bernardino County, California, state lawmakers have introduced a bill that would grant immunity to emergency responders if they damage any drones during a firefighting or rescue operation. The incident was the latest example of where an aircraft trying to fight fires was grounded due to drone interference. According to the article, another bill has also been proposed which would increase fines and make jail time possible for drone-users found to have interfered with firefighters. Governor Brown vetoed all three bills in October 2015, citing concerns about creating new criminal categories. However, the Governor did sign into law privacy protections concerning drone use. According to the Los Angeles Times, the bill is designed to prevent paparazzi from using drones to take photos or make recordings above private property.

North Dakota’s house of representatives has reportedly passed a bill that would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant when using a drone to search for criminal evidence. An amendment to the bill that would allow law enforcement to deploy drones with “non-lethal” weapons has sparked worries over the potential use of weaponized drones.

In July 2015 the Insurance Journal reported that the new Georgia Building Authority (GBA) resolution banning drones “within five miles of a heliport located atop a parking garage near the Capitol building in downtown Atlanta” has sparked outrage among drone users. Drone users are reportedly arguing that the ban is an overreach of state authority. According to the article, two university campuses fall within the ban, in particular George Tech’s Research Institute, which conducts unmanned systems research. The GBA argues that the ban is necessary for safety and security reasons.

According to the National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL), laws concerning Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) were under consideration in 35 states, in 2014, of which legislation was enacted in ten states.

Various laws addressing warrant requirements for law enforcement's use of drones or its use of information gathered from a private party's use of drones, with limited exceptions, have been enacted in Alaska, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin. In particular, North Carolina's exceptions to the warrant requirement are generally more expansive in permitting law enforcements’ UAS usage to include countering an act of terrorism, overseeing public gatherings and gathering information in public spaces.

Indiana has enacted law to create a crime for unlawful electronic surveillance of the private property of another without permission a Class A misdemeanor. Whereas in Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Wisconsin, new laws, generally similar to the law enacted in Indiana, specifically refer to unlawful use of UAS for surveillance. Wisconsin has also categorized the possession of a weaponized drone as a class H felony. Additionally, laws in Alaska and North Carolina have addressed knowledge and skills training requirements for drone operators.

Follow this link for the article from the NCSL which includes a US map infographic and specific details about the enacted laws.

Other

In August 2015 The Washington Post reported that some airports are banning the sale of consumer drones on their premises, in response to worries about unsafe operations. One source in the article said these bans are largely symbolic due to the small size of the drones for sale (conventional aircraft are built to withstand collisions with objects of similar size) and the limited opportunities for customers actually to use the drones on airport premises.

In response to the recent spate of drones flying near traditional aircraft and in airport airspace, some congressmen are reportedly considering proposing legislation that might include measures, among others, requiring drone operators to register, drones to have transponders, and possible legal liability for “rogue operators”. Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley are reportedly developing a drone “license plate” to help officials identify drones and provide an accountability mechanism for drone pilots. Called “Lightcense”, an array of LEDs are installed on a drone that send out a unique pattern that could be identified in a database and can even be decoded by a smartphone app.