What is actually happening
Insurers increasingly assess roofs and properties from the air — satellite imagery, fixed-wing aerial survey, and drones — rather than by sending someone to look. It is cheaper, it scales, and it is applied to whole books of business at once rather than to properties that have given anyone a reason for concern.
The result is that a homeowner who has never made a claim, never missed a payment and never spoken to their insurer receives a non-renewal notice citing the condition of a roof nobody has been up to look at. California's insurance department has said plainly that it “has investigated numerous complaints where flawed aerial imagery led to wrongful cancellations or nonrenewals”.
| State | What it requires | In force |
|---|---|---|
| Louisiana | An insurer “shall not solely rely upon aerial images of an insured property to identify the specific condition that serves as the insurer’s basis for cancellation or nonrenewal” unless the images were taken within 24 months of that cancellation or non-renewal | Yes — since 22 May 2024. R.S. 22:1339 |
| Indiana | Only where aerial images are the SOLE reason, and only for a non-renewal. Every duty sits under “When utilizing aerial images as the sole reason for nonrenewing a policy, an insurer shall do the following”. Where it bites: images taken within the past 24 months; the notice must state how the insured can request to review copies of the images (the notice need not contain the images); an appeal process allowing correction of errors; and at least 60 days to cure. Do not read Indiana and Georgia as one rule — Georgia's statute carries no sole-reason limiter | Act effective 1 July 2026; the aerial-image provisions apply to policies issued or renewed on or after 1 January 2027 |
| Georgia | The notice of an adverse underwriting decision must include copies of, or instructions for accessing, the date-stamped aerial or satellite images relied on; images must be taken within 12 months of the decision; and the owner gets a minimum of 60 days to cure | Effective 1 January 2027 |
| Bill | What it would require | Status as at 23 August 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| California AB 75 (2025) | Notice that aerial images may be taken; images supplied on request within 30 days; no non-renewal on images older than 180 days without a verifying physical inspection; a chance to remediate before the termination date | Did not become law. Passed the Assembly 76–1, then held under submission in Senate committee on 29 August 2025. Its stated operative date of 1 July 2026 never took effect |
| California AB 1559 (2026) | Substantially the same: advance notice, images on request, no adverse decision on images older than 180 days, the image supplied with the non-renewal notice, and the right to ask for in-person verification | Pending. Introduced 8 January 2026; passed the Assembly 77–0 on 14 May 2026; reported from Senate committee 6–0 on 10 June 2026 and re-referred to a further Senate committee. Not law |
| New York S9156 (2025–26) | Annual notice; images within 30 days on request; date-stamped images with any adverse decision including a premium rise above 10%; a minimum of 60 days to remediate; no adverse decision on images over 180 days old | Pending. Referred to the Senate insurance committee on 9 February 2026. Has passed neither chamber |
The rights you have read about are mostly not law — but three states have their own
This is the part we most want to get in front of you, because on this subject the internet is confidently wrong in a way that could cost you your window to act. It is also easy to get wrong in the other direction, which is why the table below states what each document does and does not do.
You will read that an insurer must notify you before photographing your property, that you are entitled to a copy of the image within 30 days, and that a photograph more than 180 days old cannot be used against you. Those are real provisions, carefully drafted, with committee analyses you can read. They are provisions of bills. As at our last check, none of them was law.
California's AB 75 carried exactly those requirements and an operative date of 1 July 2026. It passed the Assembly 76–1 and was then held under submission in Senate committee on 29 August 2025, and never moved again. The operative date arrived with nothing behind it — which is, we suspect, how so much content came to describe it in the present tense.
Its successor AB 1559 passed the Assembly 77–0 in May 2026 and is in the Senate. New York's S9156 has been in committee since February 2026. Both may well pass. Neither has.
But three states have legislated, and if you are in one of them the paragraphs above are not your position. Louisiana has had a statutory limit since May 2024: an insurer cannot rely solely on an aerial image to identify the condition behind a cancellation or non-renewal unless that image was taken within 24 months. Indiana and Georgia both enacted laws in 2026 that give you the images, a freshness limit and at least 60 days to cure, applying from 1 January 2027. The table above sets out each one.
So the accurate statement is narrower and more useful than either “you have these rights” or “nobody does”: the specific 30-day access and 180-day freshness provisions that circulate online are not law anywhere, and three states have enacted their own, differently drawn.
| What the bulletin says | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Imagery is not enough on its own | “Insurers must be mindful, though, that aerial imagery, while useful, has its limitations and should not be the only information utilized in an insurer's decision-making process.” |
| It reaches claim denials, not just underwriting | The bulletin addresses denial of a property damage claim based solely on aerial images that are unclear or that do not accurately reflect the current state of the property. Read both qualifiers — it is about sole reliance on images that misstate the property, not about any use of imperfect imagery |
| It points at the remedy | Where imagery is unclear, the department's position is that the insurer should work to obtain accurate, clear information — by physical inspection or otherwise. That is the sentence to quote when you ask for a re-inspection |
Dropped, denied, or holding a notice you do not understand? Call us. We will read the letter with you, tell you which clock you are on and what your state requires your insurer to do — then put you in touch with a licensed agent who can quote you and write the policy.
Call (866) 754-7910Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm ET (6am to 2pm PT). We are not an insurance agency and we do not sell policies. Call and we will help you make sense of what you have been sent — then put you in touch with a licensed agent — the one person who can actually quote you and write a policy. We hold no insurance license, so we cannot quote you, recommend an insurer, or advise you on your own policy.Fourteen states have a department bulletin — and a bulletin is worth reading
Between the three states with a statute and the rest of the country sits a third category that gets almost no coverage: states where the insurance department has published a position on aerial imagery. There are at least fourteen. We have now read twelve of them in full, on the departments' own websites, and the table below sets out what each one actually says.
A bulletin is not a statute and we are not going to pretend otherwise. It is the department's stated position, and what it is worth depends entirely on the verbs. But three things make these documents more useful than their status suggests. They tell you what your regulator thinks good practice looks like, which is the standard your complaint will be measured against. Several of them point at a statute that is binding — Maryland's says that denying a claim on unclear imagery “constitutes an unfair claim settlement practice in violation of Title 27, Subtitle 3 of the Insurance Article”, and Pennsylvania's rests its notice requirements on the Unfair Insurance Practices Act. And several of them hand you a sentence you can quote back.
The thing we got wrong for a week, and the thing most summaries get wrong: whether a bulletin is mandatory or advisory is not a property of the state. It is a property of the paragraph. In Delaware, Maryland, Michigan and Rhode Island the same document is firm about what an image has to be before it can support a decision, and soft about whether anyone has to show it to you. Label those states either way and you have misdescribed them. The table splits the two questions apart for that reason.
Two patterns are worth carrying with you. First, the copy is usually best practice but the viewing often becomes an entitlement once you complain — Maine, Maryland, North Carolina and West Virginia each say a version of this, and each says it in its own words, which the table sets out. Maine ties it to requesting a hearing, Maryland to requesting a hearing after a complaint, North Carolina and West Virginia to filing the complaint itself. We are paraphrasing four documents here rather than quoting one, deliberately: there is no single sentence they all share, and inventing one by stitching them together is how a quotation that exists nowhere gets into circulation. That pattern is a real reason to file rather than only argue. Second, cosmetic damage is the one thing nearly every department names. Discoloration and streaking on a roof appear in Delaware's, Maryland's, Massachusetts's, Michigan's, New Hampshire's and Pennsylvania's bulletins as something that should not, on its own, cost you a policy. If that is what your photograph shows, your department has probably already said so in writing.
| State | What an image must BE | What you must be TOLD | Reaches claims? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maryland Bulletin 25-10, 17 Jun 2025 | Firm. An insurer may use imagery for cancellation, non-renewal or claim denial “only if the image provides a clear, accurate, and current view of the property”. Denying a claim on unclear or imprecise images “constitutes an unfair claim settlement practice in violation of Title 27, Subtitle 3 of the Insurance Article” | Encouraged, not required — the Administration “encourages insurers to share and communicate” before acting. But request a hearing and you “would be entitled to review images”, and the insurer bears the burden of showing the action was justified | Yes — named in the title |
| Rhode Island Bulletin 2025-3, 18 Aug 2025 | Firm, and the only MANDATORY numeric recency limit in any bulletin we have read: images “must provide a clear, accurate, and current (less than 15 months old) view”. Also reaches “any third-party roof scores or similar mechanisms leveraging aerial imagery” — the only bulletin that follows the vendor | Best practice. Notify before acting, “provide copies of aerial images used”, allow updated information or a challenge | Yes — unclear images “cannot alone be used to determine claim settlement or denial” |
| New Hampshire Docket INS 25-016-AB, 19 Feb 2025 | Firm. Where imagery “does not unequivocally demonstrate property degradation or damage warranting a refusal to write or renew, insurers must conduct a follow-up physical inspection”. Cosmetic issues such as roof discoloration cannot justify declining | Nothing. No right to see the image and no notice duty. If you contest the findings a physical inspection “remains necessary” — so you must contest what you have no stated right to see | No — declination and non-renewal only |
| Delaware Bulletin No. 150, 21 Mar 2025 | Firm. “Insurers must provide clear evidence of significant degradation or damage” and must establish the increase in risk “is substantial”. Cosmetic discoloration and streaking are not valid grounds. Vague reasons — “claims experience”, “underwriting judgment” — are “unacceptable” | Expected. The Department “expects” insurers to give customers access to the imagery — note: access, not copies — and recommends a physical inspection where the customer disputes it | Yes in scope, though the operative sentences are about underwriting |
| Michigan Bulletin 2025-12-INS, 6 Jun 2025 | Firm on filing, soft on the image. Michigan is the only one of the twelve that reaches rate-making: rules using aerial imagery “must be filed first”. On the image itself it says only that imagery “can be improperly used if the aerial images are unclear or outdated” | Should. Advise that the action is based on aerial imagery, “provide the homeowner with copies of the aerial imagery”, and let them challenge it or update the insurer's information | Yes — the defined term “Adverse Action” covers claims handling |
| Pennsylvania Notice 2024-06, 25 May 2024 | Advisory. Cosmetic images “should not be used as the sole evidence”; a physical inspection is what “it would be prudent” to do | Mandatory — and the mandate is borrowed from the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, which makes it the firmest notice duty here. On policies in force 60 days or more the insurer “must” state both the legal and factual reason, and prior notice and an opportunity to cure are “prerequisites to a lawful policy termination”. What you get is the reasons and a chance to cure — not the image | No — non-renewal and mid-term cancellation of homeowners and dwelling fire policies |
| Maine Bulletin 483, 19 Mar 2025 | Advisory. Imagery “should not be the only information utilized”. On age: “Older imagery will often not be sufficient” to meet the insurer's burden of proving the reason for non-renewal | Best practice to notify first and “provide the homeowner with copies of any aerial images used”. Request a hearing under the MPICCA and you “will be entitled to view evidence relied upon by the insurer” | Yes in scope; the operative paragraphs are about non-renewal |
| North Carolina Bulletin 25-B-09, 11 Aug 2025 | Advisory and self-described as such. “Aerial Images should be both recent and accurate”; older or unclear imagery standing alone “may not be sufficient”. The Department “may take regulatory action” against unfair or misleading use | Best practice to notify, say the action is based on aerial imagery, and “provide the owner with copies”. File a complaint and you are “entitled to view evidence relied upon” | Yes in scope; every operative safeguard is written around non-renewal |
| West Virginia Bulletin 25-02, 16 Apr 2025 | Advisory throughout. No “must” or “shall” appears in the body. Imagery “should not be the only information utilized”; on age, “recent evidence will be required” to meet the insurer's burden | Best practice to notify, say the action is based on aerial imagery, and “provide the homeowner with copies of any aerial images used”. File a complaint with the OIC and you are “entitled to view evidence relied upon” | Yes — “nonrenewals, cancellations, underwriting, claims handling, and similar activities” |
| Massachusetts Bulletin 2025-02, 30 Apr 2025 | Advisory, in the ‘the Division expects’ register. Insurers “are expected to ensure the clarity and accuracy of these images” and to conduct further review, “which may include a follow-up physical inspection”. No recency provision at all | Least of the twelve. No provision for giving you the image. You get the specific reasons for the non-renewal, and if you send material contesting the finding the Division expects the insurer to review it | No — underwriting only. The narrowest of the twelve |
| Colorado Bulletin B-5.57, 16 Mar 2026 | Advisory, with a number: for general underwriting and rating “aerial imagery should be no more than twelve (12) months old unless more recent conditions warrant updated verification” | Should. Those hit by an adverse action “should be given a meaningful opportunity to dispute the accuracy of aerial imagery, correct errors, provide updated information, and submit proof of completed repairs or remediation” | Adverse action generally |
| Tennessee Bulletin 25-03, updated 2 Apr 2026 | Advisory on use. Imagery “should not be the only information utilized in an insurer's decision-making process” | Split, and the claims half is the strongest disclosure line anywhere: for underwriting files it is conditional, but failing to give a policyholder copies of the imagery behind a claim denial or settlement offer “constitutes an unfair claims practice” | Yes — see the Tennessee table above |
| Alabama Bulletin 2025-03, 17 Jun 2025 | We have not read it. The Department of Insurance publishes it as a scanned PDF with no text layer, on both of its hosts. We can confirm the number, title and date from the department's own bulletin index and nothing else | Unknown to us. Compliance vendors summarize this bulletin and we have quoted one of those summaries elsewhere on this site in the past. We no longer do. A vendor's paraphrase is not the department's words | Unknown to us |
| Kentucky Bulletin 2026-01, 11 Mar 2026 | We have not read it. Same reason: the PDF the Kentucky Department of Insurance publishes carries no machine-readable text. The number, exact title (‘Use of Satellite/Aerial Imagery’) and date are verified against that department's own bulletin index | Unknown to us. A secondary survey reports a 12-month date-stamp requirement and a right to review the images. We are not repeating that as fact — no bulletin we have read requires a date stamp on an image, and the only numeric limits we have verified are 15 months and 12 months | Unknown to us |
What you do have
Losing the rights you thought you had is not the same as having none. Two things are real.
Your state's non-renewal rules. Every state sets a minimum notice period before a non-renewal takes effect, and the notice generally has to give a reason. That period is your working window, and it is the deadline every step below is measured against.
What practice gives you, even where law does not. Insurers commonly supply the image when asked, commonly state the specific condition when pressed, and commonly re-inspect when a homeowner offers access and produces dated evidence to the contrary. None of that is an entitlement right now. All of it is worth asking for, in writing, immediately — and a request in writing is also the record you will need if you end up complaining to your insurance department.
| The question | The honest answer today |
|---|---|
| Must the insurer tell me before photographing my property? | No requirement we can point to in any enacted statute. Advance notice is a feature of the pending California and New York bills, not of the three laws that have passed |
| Am I entitled to see the image used against me? | In Indiana and Georgia, from 1 January 2027, yes — the non-renewal or adverse-decision notice must tell you how to get the images, or include them. Elsewhere it is a request rather than a right, and insurers often grant it |
| Can they use a photo that is two years old? | Louisiana: not as the sole basis — the image must be within 24 months. Indiana adopts 24 months and Georgia 12 months from 1 January 2027. The 180-day limit people cite is from the pending bills and is nowhere in force. Elsewhere, image age is still the first thing to raise |
| Do I get a chance to fix the problem first? | Indiana and Georgia both require a minimum of 60 days to cure, from 1 January 2027. Elsewhere there is no aerial-imagery cure period, but your state's non-renewal notice period is real and remediating inside it is the practical route |
| Do I get advance notice of non-renewal? | Yes — this one is a genuine right nearly everywhere. Every state sets a minimum notice period for non-renewal, and the notice generally has to state a reason |
| Can I ask for a physical inspection? | You can ask, and it is the single most effective step. It is a request, not currently an entitlement |
Why the photograph is so often wrong
The failure modes are boring and mechanical, which is what makes them worth knowing: most of them are answered by a date or by a person on a ladder.
| Failure | What it looks like | What answers it |
|---|---|---|
| The image is out of date | The roof was replaced, the tarp came off, the tree was removed — after the photo was taken | Dated invoices, permits, the contractor's completion paperwork, your own dated photographs |
| Staining read as damage | Algae streaking, moss, or granule shading looks like deterioration from above | A physical inspection. This distinction is close to impossible from altitude |
| Shadow or debris read as a defect | Leaf litter, a shadow line, a patch of different-aged shingle | An inspection, and photographs taken from the ground |
| The wrong property | Adjoining roofs, shared structures, or a mis-keyed address | Ask which image, of which address, taken when. A surprising number of disputes end here |
| A real condition, correctly identified | Sometimes the photograph is simply right | Then the question changes from disputing it to what it costs to fix and whether fixing it inside the notice period restores you |
What to do, and in what order
We are not licensed to advise you and we have not seen your notice or your roof. What follows is the order the constraints above imply. The deadline on your notice governs everything.
| Step | What to do | Why here in the order |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Read the date on the notice and work backwards from it | Every step below is bounded by that deadline, and it is usually shorter than it looks |
| 2 | Ask for the image, its date, and the address it is keyed to — in writing | You are not currently entitled to it, but insurers frequently supply it, and the date alone resolves a large share of these disputes |
| 3 | Ask what specific condition was identified | “Roof condition” is not a finding. You cannot rebut what has not been stated |
| 4 | Gather dated evidence of the actual current state | Invoices, permits, completion certificates, ground-level photographs with dates |
| 5 | Request a physical inspection, and offer access | The most effective single step, because the failure modes above are almost all resolved by someone standing on the roof |
| 6 | Keep shopping in parallel, and do not let the policy lapse | A dispute you expect to win is not a policy. A gap in coverage is itself a decline reason on the next application |
Corrections to this page (6)
We publish these rather than editing quietly. Our corrections policy explains how we handle errors.
- — Five assertions on this page rested on a search we had never written down. This page now carries a search-record section, and it is new: for each of those five it sets out the angles actually searched and the documents actually opened. This page is the reason that registry exists at all — it once said no state had enacted an aerial-imagery law when Louisiana had, since May 2024 — and the mechanism built afterwards had never been attached to it.
- — Rhode Island's row called its 15-month rule “the only numeric limit anywhere”. Four other rows in the same build give one — Colorado 12 months, Louisiana 24, Indiana 24, Georgia 12. Our own source registry had the accurate form of this claim, calling it the only MANDATORY numeric recency limit; the cell a reader actually sees had dropped the word that made it true and added one that made it false.
- — We named fourteen states as having issued a department bulletin on aerial imagery while having read two of them. We have now read twelve, from the departments' own websites, and published what each one says. Two remain unread — Alabama's and Kentucky's, both scanned PDFs with no text layer — and are now marked as unread rather than listed alongside documents we had actually opened.
- — We repeated a secondary survey's report that Kentucky's Bulletin 2026-01 requires a date stamp within 12 months. We have not read that bulletin and cannot verify it. No bulletin we have read requires a date stamp on an image, and the only numeric age limits we have verified are Rhode Island's fifteen months and Colorado's twelve. The claim has been removed rather than hedged.
- — On our old-roof page we put quotation marks around words from Alabama's Bulletin 2025-03 that we had taken from a compliance vendor's summary, not from the department. We have never read that bulletin. The quotation marks have been removed and the row now says only what we know.
- — We stated that no state had enacted a law regulating insurers' use of aerial imagery. Three had: Louisiana R.S. 22:1339, in force since 22 May 2024, and Indiana and Georgia from 1 January 2027. A Louisiana reader would have been told they had no protection they in fact held. The enacted-law table was added.
How we researched this
The underlying dataset is published, with a DOI, so you can check this page against it. The fourteen department documents behind this page were coded into an open dataset — one row per jurisdiction, 23 fields, plus every quotation with its source URL and the extraction method used to obtain it. It is deposited under CC BY 4.0 at doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22114572. It is our own dataset and we say so plainly — it is not independent verification of this page, it is the working behind it, opened up. Two of the fourteen documents are marked NOT READ in that dataset because they are published as scanned images with no text layer, and two more were read through a weaker retrieval channel. Those limits are recorded there as well as here.
Every legislative status on this page was verified on 23 August 2026 against the relevant legislature's own record, not against news coverage. We give the chamber, the vote and the date because on this subject the difference between a bill and a law is the entire point: a Senate Judiciary Committee analysis of California's AB 75 dated 1 July 2025 sets out the notice, access, freshness and remediation provisions in detail, and that analysis appears to be the source of a great deal of content describing those provisions as current law. The bill was held under submission on 29 August 2025.
Bill status is the most perishable kind of fact we publish. This table is a snapshot taken on the date above and it will go out of date without any visible signal that it has. If AB 1559 or S9156 has since been enacted, this page is wrong until we update it, and we would rather you check than trust us on it.
The characterization of aerial imagery failure modes is ours, drawn from what the pending bills are drafted to address and from California's insurance commissioner's public statement that flawed imagery has produced wrongful cancellations and non-renewals. It is a general account and not a finding about your property.
Correction, 23 August 2026. This page originally stated that we could find no state that had enacted a law of this kind. That was wrong. Louisiana has had R.S. 22:1339 in force since 22 May 2024 — more than two years before we published — and Indiana and Georgia both enacted statutes in 2026. A Louisiana reader would have been told they had no aerial-imagery protection when they had one. The error came from searching for pending legislation, finding the California and New York bills, and stopping; the hedge we used (“could find none” rather than “there are none”) was honest phrasing over an inadequate search, and honest phrasing does not make a wrong answer safe. The enacted-law table at the top of this page is the correction.
We still do not claim the enacted-law table is complete. Beyond the three statutes, at least fourteen states have issued an insurance department bulletin on aerial imagery — regulatory guidance rather than statute. Coverage of this topic routinely counts only the statutes, which routes a reader in a bulletin-only state to a table headed ‘a state that has not legislated on this’, and leaves them believing there is no requirement anyone could point to.
On 26 August 2026 we read ten more, from the departments' own websites. That brings us to twelve of fourteen, and the bulletin table above is the result. Three things are worth saying about how it was done, because they bear on how much you should trust it. Each document was extracted as raw text from the department's own file rather than summarized by a machine — on this page's history that distinction has mattered twice, once when a summary invented a retraction and once when it silently dropped a paragraph that ran across a page break. Two of the fourteen, Alabama's and Kentucky's, we still have not read: both departments publish theirs as a scanned image with no text layer, and rather than quote a compliance vendor's paraphrase of them we have said so in the table. And Colorado's and Tennessee's were read before that method was settled, so they are held to a weaker standard than the ten beside them; we have no reason to think they are wrong and we are telling you anyway.
Reading them changed three things we had published. The reported Kentucky ‘12-month date stamp’ is gone from this page — no bulletin we have read requires a date stamp on an image at all, and the only verified numeric limits are Rhode Island's fifteen months and Colorado's twelve. New Hampshire's bulletin is dated 19 February 2025 on its face; trade coverage gives the 18th, which is the filename. And we had been quoting Alabama's bulletin through a compliance vendor's summary on a related page; those quotation marks are gone, because we have never opened the document they were attributed to. If you know of a law or bulletin we have missed, our corrections policy explains how to tell us.
Sources
Every passage this page puts in quotation marks, with the document it came from, the part of that document, and the date we read it. 25 quotations from 15 documents. Follow the links and check us. Statutes are amended and pages move; if one of these is wrong or dead, our corrections policy says how we handle it.
Indiana HEA 1260 (2026) as enrolled, SECTION 24 adding IC 27-7-12-6.5(a) — https://iga.in.gov/pdf-documents/124/2026/house/bills/HB1260/HB1260.06.ENRS.pdf
When utilizing aerial images as the sole reason for nonrenewing a policy, an insurer shall do the following
Indiana HEA 1260 (2026) as enrolled, SECTION 24 adding IC 27-7-12-6.5(a) — the PRECONDITION governing all five duties. Registered 25 Aug 2026 after this page stated them unconditionally and described Indiana jointly with Georgia, whose statute has no such limiter Retrieved 25 August 2026.
Colorado Division of Insurance, New Bulletin No. B-5.57, 'Division Position Concerning Use of Aerial Imagery by Insurers in Decision Making', 16 March 2026. NOTE 'should' — https://doi.colorado.gov/sites/doi/files/documents/New%20Bulletin%205.57%20Aerial%20Imagery.pdf
For general underwriting and rating purposes, aerial imagery should be no more than twelve (12) months old unless more recent conditions warrant updated verification.
Colorado Division of Insurance, New Bulletin No. B-5.57, 'Division Position Concerning Use of Aerial Imagery by Insurers in Decision Making', 16 March 2026. NOTE 'should' — this is a stated Division position, not a statute Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Policyholders and applicants impacted by an adverse action supported by aerial imagery should be given a meaningful opportunity to dispute the accuracy of aerial imagery, correct errors, provide updated information, and submit proof of completed repairs or remediation.
Colorado Division of Insurance, New Bulletin No. B-5.57, 16 March 2026. The sentence a Colorado reader most needs, on a page that until 25 Aug 2026 routed them to a table headed 'no statute and no bulletin' Retrieved 25 August 2026.
La. R.S. 22:1339(A), FIRST SENTENCE IN FULL — https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=1389148
An insurer shall not solely rely upon aerial images of an insured property to identify the specific condition that serves as the insurer's basis for cancellation or nonrenewal of a policy of homeowners' insurance unless the images are taken within twenty-four months of the date of the cancellation or nonrenewal of the policy.
La. R.S. 22:1339(A), FIRST SENTENCE IN FULL — Acts 2024 No. 151, eff. 22 May 2024. AN EARLIER ENTRY STOPPED AT 'the specific condition', which turned a 24-month RECENCY LIMIT into a flat ban on sole reliance. A Louisiana homeowner would have believed they had a defense against a recent photograph that the statute does not give them. The 'unless' clause is the whole rule Retrieved 24 August 2026.
All images, including aerial images, that are not utilized to identify the condition that serves as the basis for cancellation or nonrenewal or that are utilized solely for the purpose of identification and location of the immovable property and any improvements to the immovable property may be used without a limitation on the age of the photograph.
La. R.S. 22:1339(A), SECOND sentence — the carve-out the first sentence's age limit does not reach Retrieved 24 August 2026.
CDI press release 029-2025, 28 Mar 2025 — https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2025/release029-2025.cfm
The California Department of Insurance has investigated numerous complaints where flawed aerial imagery led to wrongful cancellations or nonrenewals.
CDI press release 029-2025, 28 Mar 2025 — department narrative text, NOT a quoted speaker and NOT part of any bill Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Tennessee Dept. of Commerce & Insurance, Bulletin 25-03, updated 2 Apr 2026 — https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/commerce/documents/insurance/bulletins/UpdatedAerialImageryBulletin25-03_20260402.pdf
aerial imagery, while useful, has its limitations and should not be the only information utilized in an insurer's decision-making process
Tennessee Dept. of Commerce & Insurance, Bulletin 25-03, updated 2 Apr 2026 — the INTRODUCTORY text, before Section I. An earlier registry entry placed it in Section I; it is not there. THIS QUOTATION SAT VERIFIED AND DATED IN THIS REGISTRY WHILE THE PAGE TOLD READERS WE HAD VERIFIED NO BULLETINS AND NEVER RENDERED IT Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Rhode Island Insurance Bulletin 2025-3, 'Aerial Imagery Used by Homeowners Insurers', 18 Aug 2025, Superintendent Elizabeth Kelleher Dwyer. THE ONLY MANDATORY NUMERIC RECENCY LIMIT IN ANY BULLETIN WE HAVE READ — https://dbr.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur696/files/2025-08/INS_Insurance%20Bulletin%202025-3%20Aerial%20Imaging.pdf
Images used to evaluate a property risk must provide a clear, accurate, and current (less than 15 months old) view.
Rhode Island Insurance Bulletin 2025-3, 'Aerial Imagery Used by Homeowners Insurers', 18 Aug 2025, Superintendent Elizabeth Kelleher Dwyer. THE ONLY MANDATORY NUMERIC RECENCY LIMIT IN ANY BULLETIN WE HAVE READ — and it is 15 months, not the 12 the secondary survey led us to expect Retrieved 26 August 2026.
any third-party roof scores or similar mechanisms leveraging aerial imagery
Rhode Island Bulletin 2025-3, 18 Aug 2025 — the scope sentence. The ONLY bulletin of the twelve that follows the imagery to the VENDOR SCORE derived from it, which is how most of these decisions are actually made Retrieved 26 August 2026.
cannot alone be used to determine claim settlement or denial
Rhode Island Bulletin 2025-3, 18 Aug 2025 — the claims half, in the paragraph after the 15-month standard Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Maryland Insurance Administration Bulletin 25-10, 17 June 2025 — https://insurance.maryland.gov/Insurer/Documents/bulletins/25-10-Cancellations-Nonrenewals-and-Claim-Denials-Based-on-Satellite-and-Aerial-Imagry.pdf
denying a claim based on satellite or aerial images that are unclear or imprecise constitutes an unfair claim settlement practice in violation of Title 27, Subtitle 3 of the Insurance Article
Maryland Insurance Administration Bulletin 25-10, 17 June 2025 — the Administration naming a statutory violation rather than stating a preference. The strongest sentence in any of the twelve Retrieved 26 August 2026.
it is the Administration's position that an insurer may use satellite or aerial imagery as a basis for cancellation, nonrenewal, or claim denial only if the image provides a clear, accurate, and current view of the property
Maryland Bulletin 25-10, 17 June 2025 — the 'only if' that governs the rest of the document Retrieved 26 August 2026.
New Hampshire Insurance Department, Docket #INS 25-016-AB, 'Aerial Imagery and Refusal to Write or Renew', Commissioner David J. Bettencourt. THE DATE ON THE FACE OF THE BULLETIN IS 19 FEBRUARY 2025; trade coverage gives 18 February, which is the filename. Conditioned on the imagery not unequivocally demonstrating the degradation — https://mm.nh.gov/files/uploads/nhid/documents/20250218-aerial-imagery-bulletin.pdf
insurers must conduct a follow-up physical inspection to validate any suspected issues derived from aerial data
New Hampshire Insurance Department, Docket #INS 25-016-AB, 'Aerial Imagery and Refusal to Write or Renew', Commissioner David J. Bettencourt. THE DATE ON THE FACE OF THE BULLETIN IS 19 FEBRUARY 2025; trade coverage gives 18 February, which is the filename. Conditioned on the imagery not unequivocally demonstrating the degradation — read the preceding clause with it Retrieved 26 August 2026.
does not unequivocally demonstrate property degradation or damage warranting a refusal to write or renew, insurers must conduct a follow-up physical inspection to validate any suspected issues derived from aerial data
New Hampshire Docket #INS 25-016-AB, 19 Feb 2025 — quoted from 'does not' so the CONDITION travels with the duty. The sentence opens 'If aerial imagery'; the 'must' only bites where the imagery is equivocal Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Pennsylvania Insurance Department Notice 2024-06, 54 Pa.B. 2908, published 25 May 2024, Commissioner Michael Humphreys. Note the notice itself spells 'Aerial' correctly; 'Ariel' is a typo on the department's own index page — https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pabull?file=/secure/pabulletin/data/vol54/54-21/735.html
Aerial images alone showing discoloration, streaking or other cosmetic damage should not be used as the sole evidence to support cancellation or nonrenewal actions.
Pennsylvania Insurance Department Notice 2024-06, 54 Pa.B. 2908, published 25 May 2024, Commissioner Michael Humphreys. Note the notice itself spells 'Aerial' correctly; 'Ariel' is a typo on the department's own index page Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Delaware Domestic and Foreign Insurers Bulletin No. 150, 21 March 2025, Commissioner Trinidad Navarro. The same bulletin also states that it 'is not intended to set forth legal rights, duties, or privileges' — https://insurance.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2025/03/domestic-foreign-insurers-bulletin-no150.pdf
Insurers must provide clear evidence of significant degradation or damage that increases the risk of loss to support a cancellation decision. An insurer must establish not only that a risk has increased but also that the increase is substantial.
Delaware Domestic and Foreign Insurers Bulletin No. 150, 21 March 2025, Commissioner Trinidad Navarro. The same bulletin also states that it 'is not intended to set forth legal rights, duties, or privileges' — mandatory verbs inside a document disclaiming legal force, which is why this page splits the two columns rather than labelling states Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Massachusetts Division of Insurance Bulletin 2025-02, 30 Apr 2025, Commissioner Michael T. Caljouw. THE NARROWEST OF THE TWELVE — https://www.mass.gov/doc/bulletin-2025-02-underwriting-actions-based-on-the-use-of-aerial-imaging-issued-april-30-2025/download
cosmetic damage that does not fundamentally reflect the structural quality of a property or its propensity for loss, such as roof discoloration or streaking, should not be the sole basis for a non-renewal, cancellation, or declination to write a policy
Massachusetts Division of Insurance Bulletin 2025-02, 30 Apr 2025, Commissioner Michael T. Caljouw. THE NARROWEST OF THE TWELVE — underwriting only, and it gives no right to see the image, only a duty to consider what you send in Retrieved 26 August 2026.
are expected to ensure the clarity and accuracy of these images
Massachusetts Bulletin 2025-02, 30 Apr 2025 — the whole of what Massachusetts requires of an image. There is no recency provision anywhere in it Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Michigan DIFS Bulletin 2025-12-INS, 6 June 2025, Director Anita G. Fox — https://www.michigan.gov/difs/-/media/Project/Websites/difs/Bulletins/2025/Bulletin_2025-12-INS.pdf
provide the homeowner with copies of the aerial imagery, and let the homeowner challenge the aerial imagery or update the Insurer's information
Michigan DIFS Bulletin 2025-12-INS, 6 June 2025, Director Anita G. Fox — the 'should' half of a bulletin whose 'must' half is about rate and rule FILING. Michigan is the only one of the twelve that reaches rate-making Retrieved 26 August 2026.
can be improperly used if the aerial images are unclear or outdated
Michigan Bulletin 2025-12-INS, 6 June 2025 — Michigan's only statement about the image itself; its firm language is reserved for rate and rule filing Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Maine Bureau of Insurance Bulletin 483, 19 March 2025, Superintendent Robert L. Carey. Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island and West Virginia all carry a close variant of this sentence — https://www.maine.gov/pfr/insurance/sites/maine.gov.pfr.insurance/files/inline-files/483.pdf
it is best practice to notify the homeowner before initiating the nonrenewal action, provide the homeowner with copies of any aerial images used in taking the action, and allow the homeowner to provide updated information or dispute the accuracy of the imagery used
Maine Bureau of Insurance Bulletin 483, 19 March 2025, Superintendent Robert L. Carey. Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island and West Virginia all carry a close variant of this sentence — it appears to be a traveling paragraph Retrieved 26 August 2026.
North Carolina Department of Insurance Bulletin 25-B-09, 11 Aug 2025 — https://www.ncdoi.gov/25-b-09-use-aerial-images/open
the Department received multiple complaints after one insurer issued nonrenewals based on drone images it had purchased from a third party that were not clear, leading to problems like well-manicured flower beds being identified as yard waste
North Carolina Department of Insurance Bulletin 25-B-09, 11 Aug 2025 — the only bulletin of the twelve that recounts a specific incident, and the plainest illustration on this page of how the failure actually looks Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Aerial Images should be both recent and accurate
North Carolina Bulletin 25-B-09, 11 Aug 2025 — the recency safeguard, stated qualitatively. North Carolina sets no number Retrieved 26 August 2026.
West Virginia Insurance Bulletin No. 25-02, 16 Apr 2025, Commissioner Allan L. McVey. THE PATTERN WORTH SEEING: the copy is best practice, but viewing the evidence becomes an entitlement once you file a complaint. Maine, Maryland and North Carolina all work the same way — https://www.wvinsurance.gov/Portals/0/pdf/IB25-02_Aerial_Imagery.pdf
If a homeowner files a complaint with the OIC, the homeowner will be entitled to view evidence relied upon by the insurer in making the nonrenewal or cancellation determination.
West Virginia Insurance Bulletin No. 25-02, 16 Apr 2025, Commissioner Allan L. McVey. THE PATTERN WORTH SEEING: the copy is best practice, but viewing the evidence becomes an entitlement once you file a complaint. Maine, Maryland and North Carolina all work the same way Retrieved 26 August 2026.
nonrenewals, cancellations, underwriting, claims handling, and similar activities
West Virginia Bulletin 25-02, 16 Apr 2025 — the scoping list, which is what establishes that the bulletin reaches CLAIMS and not only underwriting. Maine's Bulletin 483 carries the same list Retrieved 26 August 2026.
What we could not find
This page makes 5 claims that something does not exist. That is the one kind of claim you cannot check by following a link, because there is no document to link to — so here is the search behind each one, and what we opened. Not finding something is not a finding. If you know of a source we missed, our corrections policy says how to tell us.
“The specific 30-day access and 180-day freshness rules you have read about are from bills that are not law anywhere”
Where we looked 26 August 2026.
- ENACTED: searched each state's insurance code for an aerial- or remote-imagery provision carrying a 30-day access window or a 180-day freshness limit. The three enacted laws we found carry neither: Louisiana 24 months, Indiana 24 months, Georgia 12 months.
- PENDING: searched 2025 and 2026 sessions for the bills those numbers actually come from, because the claim is about their status rather than their absence -- California AB 75, California AB 1559, New York S9156.
What we actually opened
- La. R.S. 22:1339 (enacted text)
- Ind. Code 27-7-12-6.5, as added by P.L. 86-2026 (enacted text)
- California AB 75 bill history -- held in committee August 2025
- California AB 1559 bill history -- reported from Senate committee 6-0 on 10 June 2026, re-referred to a further Senate committee
- New York S9156 bill text and status
“No requirement we can point to in any enacted statute”
Where we looked 26 August 2026.
- ENACTED: read the three aerial-imagery statutes in force -- Louisiana, Indiana, Georgia -- for any advance-notice-before-photographing duty. None imposes one; all three regulate what may be DONE with an image.
- PENDING: checked whether the advance-notice idea exists at all, and where -- it is a feature of the California and New York bills, which is why the claim is 'no ENACTED statute' rather than 'nobody has proposed it'.
What we actually opened
- La. R.S. 22:1339
- Ind. Code 27-7-12-6.5
- Georgia's 2026 aerial-imagery act
- California AB 75 and New York S9156, for the advance-notice provisions
“Elsewhere we have found no aerial-imagery statute”
Where we looked 26 August 2026.
- ENACTED: searched state insurance codes for aerial, satellite, drone and remote-imagery provisions governing cancellation or non-renewal.
- PENDING: searched 2025-2026 sessions, because a statute enacted this year and not yet codified reads as absent in a code search -- which is exactly how Louisiana was missed the first time.
What we actually opened
- State insurance codes, searched for aerial/satellite/drone/imagery terms
- La. R.S. 22:1339, Ind. Code 27-7-12-6.5 and Georgia's 2026 act, as the three positives that calibrate the search
“no bulletin we have read requires a date stamp on an image at all”
Where we looked 26 August 2026.
- Read the twelve department bulletins in hand for any date-stamp or metadata-on-the-image requirement, as opposed to a recency limit on when the image was captured. These are different duties and were being conflated -- a reported Kentucky '12-month date stamp' was removed from this page as a result.
- Searched separately for the Kentucky bulletin the date-stamp claim was attributed to, to establish whether we had simply not read it.
What we actually opened
- The twelve bulletins listed in the bulletin table, read from department hosts: Maryland, Rhode Island, Michigan, Delaware, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Maine, North Carolina, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Tennessee
“There is no recency provision anywhere in it”
Where we looked 26 August 2026.
- Read the Massachusetts bulletin end to end for any limit on how old an image may be, rather than searching it for a keyword -- the claim is about the whole document, so a keyword search cannot establish it.
- Compared it against the bulletins that DO carry one -- Rhode Island's fifteen months and Colorado's twelve -- to confirm what such a provision looks like when a department writes one.
What we actually opened
- Massachusetts Division of Insurance bulletin, read in full
- Rhode Island Bulletin 2025-3 and the Colorado bulletin, as the two bulletins carrying a numeric recency limit
Frequently asked questions
Can an insurer drop me based on a drone or satellite photo?
Generally yes, subject to your state's ordinary rules on non-renewal, and subject to an aerial-imagery statute if your state has one. Three do. In Louisiana an insurer cannot rely solely on an aerial image unless it was taken within 24 months of the cancellation or non-renewal. Indiana and Georgia impose freshness limits, image access and a 60-day cure period from 1 January 2027. Elsewhere we have found no aerial-imagery statute, and bills are pending in California and New York. But check the bulletin table first — fourteen states have a published department position, and a few of those come close to a rule. Maryland's says an insurer may act on imagery “only if the image provides a clear, accurate, and current view of the property”, and that denying a claim on an unclear one is an unfair claim settlement practice in violation of its Insurance Article.
My state has a bulletin, not a law. Is it worth anything?
More than its status suggests, and less than a statute. A bulletin is your insurance department's stated position on what good practice looks like — which matters, because that department is who handles your complaint and that position is the standard your complaint gets measured against. Several go further and point at a statute that does bind: Maryland's names an unfair claim settlement practice under its Insurance Article, and Pennsylvania's rests its notice requirements on the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, under which prior notice and a chance to cure are “prerequisites to a lawful policy termination”. The practical move is to read your state's row in the table above, find the sentence that fits your situation, and quote it in writing — to the insurer first, and to the department if that fails. Do not expect a bulletin's “should” to work like a “must”.
Can they drop me over roof discoloration or streaking?
Six of the twelve bulletins we have read say some version of no — not on that alone. Delaware calls cosmetic issues invalid grounds for cancellation; Pennsylvania says images showing “discoloration, streaking or other cosmetic damage should not be used as the sole evidence”; Massachusetts, Michigan, Maryland and New Hampshire each say something similar. It is the single most consistent position across the whole set, which tells you how often it happens. Note the qualifier in every one of them: it is sole reliance on cosmetic appearance that the departments object to, not the use of imagery. If your notice cites the look of the roof and nothing else, that is the sentence to quote, and a physical inspection is what settles it — algae staining and granule loss are close to indistinguishable from altitude.
Am I entitled to a copy of the image they used?
In Indiana and Georgia, from 1 January 2027, yes — the notice must include the images or say how to get them. Elsewhere, not as a right. The 30-day access provision that appears in most articles comes from California's AB 75, which did not become law, and from AB 1559 and New York's S9156, which are pending. Insurers frequently supply the image when asked, so ask — in writing, and including the date of the image and the address it is keyed to.
Is there a rule that the photo cannot be more than 180 days old?
The 180-day figure specifically is from the pending bills and is not law anywhere. Indiana's 24-month and Georgia's 12-month limits are real, and apply from 1 January 2027 to policies issued or renewed on or after that date. Louisiana's is not a freshness limit at all, and we had it wrong here: R.S. 22:1339 bars an insurer from solely relying on aerial images unless they were taken within twenty-four months. Pair an old image with an inspection or a claim record and the twenty-four-month clause never engages. The statute also exempts images used only to identify and locate the property from any age limit at all. Everywhere, image age is worth asking about, because it is one of the most common reasons an aerial finding is simply wrong — a roof replaced after the photograph was taken looks exactly like a roof that was never replaced.
What happened to California AB 75?
It passed the Assembly 76 to 1 and was then held under submission in Senate committee on 29 August 2025 and never moved again. The record says held under submission rather than failed, but nothing has happened since. Because its text specified an operative date of 1 July 2026, a great deal of published material describes its requirements as though they took effect on that date. They did not. Its successor, AB 1559, passed the Assembly 77 to 0 in May 2026 and was still in the Senate when we last checked.
Will asking for an inspection actually change anything?
It is the single most effective step available, because most of the ways an aerial image misreads a roof — staining taken for deterioration, shadow taken for a defect, an out-of-date picture, the wrong property — are resolved by someone physically looking. It is a request rather than a right at the moment, so make it early, in writing, and offer access.
Should I keep looking for another insurer while I dispute this?
Yes. The two are not alternatives. A dispute can succeed and still not conclude before your notice period expires, and being uninsured — even briefly — creates a coverage gap that becomes its own reason for the next insurer to decline. Continue shopping as though the dispute will fail, and treat a successful dispute as the better of two prepared outcomes.