Hi...not challenging, simply asking...your SF Insurance policy actually has a clause that references negligent operation of an RC device? If so, does it state under what conditions? Meaning, if you were flying in a class D airspace 'illegally', they would still cover you? Or, if your out in the boondocks where the odds of actually causing harm are greatly reduced they would cover you?
Policy language can vary considerably from state to state and carrier to carrier. Its always best to check own policy very carefully. Sometimes drones may be an exception to an exclusion to coverage. I am cutting and pasting a little to simplify things:
COVERAGE L - PERSONAL LIABILITY
If a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to
which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence, we will:
1. pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which
the insured is legally liable; and
2. provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice. We may make any investigation and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate. Our
obligation to defend any claim or suit ends when the amount we pay for damages, to effect settlement or satisfy a judgment resulting from the occurrence,
equals our limit of liability.
SECTION II - EXCLUSIONS
1. Coverage L and Coverage M do not apply to:
a. bodily injury or property damage:
(1) which is either expected or intended by the
insured; or
(2) which is the result of willful and malicious acts
of the insured;
*******************
"Bodily injury" or "property damage" that results from the ownership, leasing, operation,
maintenance, use, occupancy, renting, loaning, entrusting, supervision, loading, or unloading of
aircraft. However, this exclusion does not apply to:
********************
b.
Model aircraft not designed or used to carry people or cargo.
So, back to question whether flying drone in Class D airspace would void coverage? I think it would depend on what exactly you are doing, the exact language of the policy, and how your state courts have defined phrases like "willful and malicious."
Mere violation of a law, ordinance, rule or regulation is not always dispositive. As an example, the guy who drives drunk at night with no lights and hits pedestrian in crosswalk. Pedestrian sues driver for injuries. Unlikley carrier denies coverage unless driver was literally trying to kill or injure the pedestrian.
The AMA insurance is different. I think it says no coverage if flight is conducted in violation of any law or AMA guideline regardless of particulars.
