Emerging Risk: Drones

Government Drones Are Everywhere and Risk Managers Better Catch Up

The use of drones in the public sector is expanding rapidly. From heat mapping to dispersing medication to investigating noise complaints, the benefits and the risks are tangible.
By: | June 1, 2018 • 9 min read

In the wee hours of a frigid February night in the village of Ludborough, Lincolnshire, England, a motorist flipped his car on an isolated road. Dazed, he wandered away from the scene and was spotted by a passerby who alerted authorities.


Local police deployed a drone equipped with thermal imaging to aid in the search. The drone found him within minutes, unconscious and hypothermic, at the bottom of a ditch he’d stumbled into. Officials acknowledged he might have died were it not for the quick action of the search team and their drone.

In the U.S., similar scenarios are unfolding across the country. In June 2017, two hikers and their dog got lost in Colorado’s Pike National Forest. Douglas County Search and Rescue dispatched a drone above the vast expanse of treetops and found the trio in less than two hours.

A few months later, local police using a drone took less than 30 minutes to locate an 81-year-old woman who’d become lost in a cornfield in Asheboro, North Carolina.

“I imagine that if Superstorm Sandy were to happen today, they’d be using [drones] a lot more to help find people that were still out there,” said Edward Cooney, VP, account executive and joint insurance fund (JIF) underwriting manager, Conner Strong & Buckelew.

But search-and-rescue is hardly the only application for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the public sector. According to a recent study published by Bard College’s Center for the Study of the Drone, the adoption of UAVs by public safety agencies has been accelerating rapidly ever since the introduction of inexpensive consumer drones in 2014.

As of March 2017, nearly 350 police and fire departments in 43 states are using UAVs, for everything from crime scene photography to locating suspects and stolen property to conducting safety and risk assessments during active fires and locating people trapped inside burning buildings.

Drone applications outside of law enforcement and fire safety are growing as well. Cooney, whose organization runs two large municipal entity pools, said its member towns are either using UAVs or considering their use for a broad range of applications, including:

  • mass distribution of medications in the event of emergencies;
  • identifying and tracking oil spills and other hazardous material releases;
  • geotagging sewer pipes or boilers throughout townships;
  • forestry applications, such as monitoring wildlife and the depletion or overgrowth of forests;
  • heat-mapping facilities, such as utility authorities and waste utilities to watch for hotspots that could potentially cause fires;
  • recording noise levels to investigate civilian noise complaints;
  • remote water testing in areas that are difficult to access; and
  • bridge monitoring and assessment.

Fear of Overreach

The versatility of drones, their speed, efficiency and relatively low cost is prompting calls for expanded use. Following the mass shooting in Las Vegas, a terrorism expert spoke out about the need for drones to be deployed to assist police in gathering real-time intelligence during such incidents. The president of the Los Angeles Police Commission concurred, suggesting the shooter’s location might have been pinpointed faster had a drone been deployed.

A combination of federal and local laws, however, place certain limits on expansion. Public drone operators, like their private counterparts, are subject to Part 107 of the FAA’s Small UAVs Rule. Part 107 specifies where and when drones can be operated and the maximum speed and altitude of operation, among other things. It also specifically prohibits the use of drones at night or directly above people without a Special Governmental Interest waiver from the FAA.

“I imagine that if Superstorm Sandy were to happen today, they’d be using [drones] a lot more to help find people that were still out there.” — Edward Cooney, VP, account executive and joint insurance fund (JIF) underwriting manager, Conner Strong & Buckelew

Local laws governing public drone use often reflect public and political pressures in a region. Seattle’s police drone program was scrapped in 2013 after public outcry that the program would create a “surveillance state.” For similar reasons, the LAPD had no drone program prior to 2018, even though the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department currently operates such a program.

Most agree that, used judiciously, drones can be a valuable tool to help protect law enforcement, firefighters and the public. “Mission creep” is the biggest concern of opponents, who argue that while the technology might be employed with good intentions initially, it’s inevitable that lines will be crossed, putting civil liberties in jeopardy. It’s a very small leap, for example, from drones equipped with cameras to drones equipped with sophisticated facial recognition technology.

While the privacy debate will likely continue to stir controversy across states and municipalities, it may pale in comparison to the next frontier: the weaponization of public drones. No U.S. public safety department currently utilizes weaponized drones. A Connecticut bill that would have criminalized weaponized drones, but left an exception for law enforcement, never got past committee.

Just five states — Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont and Wisconsin — directly ban the use of weaponized drones.

In North Dakota, a bill intended to limit police use of drones took a curious turn due to an amendment proposed by a police lobbying group. The adopted amendment enables police drones to use “less than lethal” weapons, such as tasers, bean bags, pepper spray, sound cannons and rubber bullets. No departments in North Dakota are known to be currently using UAVs equipped with nonlethal weapons.

Coverage for Drone Risks

Public sector risk managers can best serve their entities by ensuring all pieces are in place for an effective drone program that serves the interests of its employees and citizens.


Agencies getting it right are the ones that approach it with the same amount of care as if they were buying a helicopter, said James Van Meter, drone expert and aviation practice leader with Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty. A drone employed in the interest of public safety “can provide great benefits, but it requires specialized training and licensing.

“There’s a lot of expertise involved in actually using this equipment to obtain the data or the images that you’re trying to obtain,” he said. “It requires special training, a special skillset and experience with it.”

Agencies should establish standard procedures for how to set the equipment up, how to check it, how to verify it’s safe before launch, how to operate it properly and safely over the areas it will be flown.

“Having the aviator mindset, as we like to call it, really makes all the difference,” said Van Meter.

Appropriate coverage is vital to protect the agency and the municipality. Van Meter said drone operators in the public sector typically buy hull and liability coverage and, in some cases, privacy coverage as well.

“Some risk managers view [privacy risk] differently, because privacy in the law enforcement context is very clearly covered and defined by the Fourth Amendment,” Van Meter explained.

“It’s a lot different for me, as a private citizen, if I’m capturing images that potentially could be violating someone’s privacy versus a law enforcement agency flying their helicopter over someone’s backyard to see what’s growing back there,” he said.

In fact, two cases in the late 1980s specifically addressed whether police were in violation of the Fourth Amendment when—without a warrant— they used drones to identify marijuana plants being grown on private property. The courts found in favor of the police in both cases. In one of the cases, the court concluded a warrant wasn’t necessary when capturing images easily visible to the naked eye from 1,000 ft.

However, current imaging systems are more advanced than they were 30 years ago, so the naked-eye holding might not stand today. In addition, U.S. courts have not clearly defined where private property ends and public airspace begins, so a drone flying at 500 ft. might net a different verdict.

Cyber Concerns

As with any other connected device, cyber security is a concern. The two key cyber concerns related to drones fall into different buckets with regard to coverage.

A breach of the data obtained by a drone would require the same type of coverage as any other breach, said Van Meter. If a drone captures sensitive data on a suspect, a crime scene or people who’ve been injured or killed, a bad actor could conceivably hack the agency’s database and post those images on the internet.

That scenario would fall outside of an aviation policy but should be covered by the agency’s cyber policy. A cyberattack with physical damage to the drone is a different matter, said Van Meter.

“An attack on the drone itself, what’s called spoofing, is where someone hostilely is trying to either jam the signal so that the drone crashes, or potentially take over control of the drone,” he said. “Both of those scenarios would be covered under war coverage on our policy, because that is [considered] a hostile takeover or hijacking of the aircraft.”

War coverage also applies to non-cyberattacks, such as when a suspect shoots at a drone and causes damage.

James Van Meter, drone expert and aviation practice leader, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty

The increase in public sector uptake of drones has been explosive. According to the Bard College study, usage by police, sheriffs, fire departments and other municipal agencies grew by 518 percent within the two years prior to the study’s release.

Risk vs. Reward

Most of the risks posed by drones are not new, noted Cooney. Bodily injury and property damage are risks public entities already manage. Privacy invasion claims also are a well-understood risk, particularly for public entities that employ video cameras or body cams.

Still, transparency is a solid mitigation strategy for agencies or municipalities operating UAVs, said Mark Aitken, senior policy advisor with Akin Gump and a former director of government relations at the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.

“Someone sees a drone, and they’re in their backyard sunbathing — they think their picture’s being taken,” said Aitken.

Education and outreach efforts are needed to help citizens understand what purpose the UAVs are actually serving, he said.

“If they were to hold [some kind of] workshop and say, ‘Hey, you might see these things around — here’s what we’re using them for,’ I think that that can go a long way. It takes the guessing game out of the equation where people automatically assume [that it’s] not being used in the right manner.”


The FAA’s website hosts a wealth of information and guidelines. Each entity must then “consider what are their own tolerances and thresholds for perhaps going above and beyond what the FAA has put in place,” Aitken said.

Well-designed policies and procedures — developed in-house or with the help of a safety management organization — help organizations ensure a level of professionalism with their drone operations and pilots.

“While there are certain risks inherent in the use of drones,” said Cooney, “it’s important to understand all of the risks that it could be offsetting. We’re trying to balance that risk and reward. That’s why we went into offering coverage for all of our members, because we think that there’s a lot of benefit from a safety perspective that they can offer.”

Added Van Meter: “It just makes so much sense to equip law enforcement officers with this technology. It can help … save innocent people, but also protect law enforcement officers and firefighters.

“The more knowledge they have of what they’re about to walk into, the more knowledge they have about the situation that they’re encountering, the better decisions they can make and the better they can act to protect themselves and the general public.” &

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Exclusive | Hank Greenberg on China Trade, Starr’s Rapid Growth and 100th, Spitzer, Schneiderman and More

In a robust and frank conversation, the insurance legend provides unique insights into global trade, his past battles and what the future holds for the industry and his company.
By: | October 12, 2018 • 12 min read

In 1960, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg was hired as a vice president of C.V. Starr & Co. At age 35, he had already accomplished a great deal.

He served his country as part of the Allied Forces that stormed the beaches at Normandy and liberated the Nazi death camps. He fought again during the Korean War, earning a Bronze Star. He held a law degree from New York Law School.


Now he was ready to make his mark on the business world.

Even C.V. Starr himself — who hired Mr. Greenberg and later hand-picked him as the successor to the company he founded in Shanghai in 1919 — could not have imagined what a mark it would be.

Mr. Greenberg began to build AIG as a Starr subsidiary, then in 1969, he took it public. The company would, at its peak, achieve a market cap of some $180 billion and cement its place as the largest insurance and financial services company in history.

This month, Mr. Greenberg travels to China to celebrate the 100th anniversary of C.V. Starr & Co. That visit occurs at a prickly time in U.S.-Sino relations, as the Trump administration levies tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese goods and China retaliates.

In September, Risk & Insurance® sat down with Mr. Greenberg in his Park Avenue office to hear his thoughts on the centennial of C.V. Starr, the dynamics of U.S. trade relationships with China and the future of the U.S. insurance industry as it faces the challenges of technology development and talent recruitment and retention, among many others. What follows is an edited transcript of that discussion.

R&I: One hundred years is quite an impressive milestone for any company. Celebrating the anniversary in China signifies the importance and longevity of that relationship. Can you tell us more about C.V. Starr’s history with China?

Hank Greenberg: We have a long history in China. I first went there in 1975. There was little there, but I had business throughout Asia, and I stopped there all the time. I’d stop there a couple of times a year and build relationships.

When I first started visiting China, there was only one state-owned insurance company there, PICC (the People’s Insurance Company of China); it was tiny at the time. We helped them to grow.

I also received the first foreign life insurance license in China, for AIA (The American International Assurance Co.). To date, there has been no other foreign life insurance company in China. It took me 20 years of hard work to get that license.

We also introduced an agency system in China. They had none. Their life company employees would get a salary whether they sold something or not. With the agency system of course you get paid a commission if you sell something. Once that agency system was installed, it went on to create more than a million jobs.

R&I: So Starr’s success has meant success for the Chinese insurance industry as well.

Hank Greenberg: That’s partly why we’re going to be celebrating that anniversary there next month. That celebration will occur alongside that of IBLAC (International Business Leaders’ Advisory Council), an international business advisory group that was put together when Zhu Rongji was the mayor of Shanghai [Zhu is since retired from public life]. He asked me to start that to attract foreign companies to invest in Shanghai.

“It turns out that it is harder [for China] to change, because they have one leader. My guess is that we’ll work it out sooner or later. Trump and Xi have to meet. That will result in some agreement that will get to them and they will have to finish the rest of the negotiations. I believe that will happen.” — Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, chairman and CEO, C.V. Starr & Co. Inc.

Shanghai and China in general were just coming out of the doldrums then; there was a lack of foreign investment. Zhu asked me to chair IBLAC and to help get it started, which I did. I served as chairman of that group for a couple of terms. I am still a part of that board, and it will be celebrating its 30th anniversary along with our 100th anniversary.


We have a good relationship with China, and we’re candid as you can tell from the op-ed I published in the Wall Street Journal. I’m told that my op-ed was received quite well in China, by both Chinese companies and foreign companies doing business there.

On August 29, Mr. Greenberg published an opinion piece in the WSJ reminding Chinese leaders of the productive history of U.S.-Sino relations and suggesting that Chinese leaders take pragmatic steps to ease trade tensions with the U.S.

R&I: What’s your outlook on current trade relations between the U.S. and China?

Hank Greenberg: As to the current environment, when you are in negotiations, every leader negotiates differently.

President Trump is negotiating based on his well-known approach. What’s different now is that President Xi (Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China) made himself the emperor. All the past presidents in China before the revolution had two terms. He’s there for life, which makes things much more difficult.

R&I: Sure does. You’ve got a one- or two-term president talking to somebody who can wait it out. It’s definitely unique.

Hank Greenberg: So, clearly a lot of change is going on in China. Some of it is good. But as I said in the op-ed, China needs to be treated like the second largest economy in the world, which it is. And it will be the number one economy in the world in not too many years. That means that you can’t use the same terms of trade that you did 25 or 30 years ago.

They want to have access to our market and other markets. Fine, but you have to have reciprocity, and they have not been very good at that.

R&I: What stands in the way of that happening?

Hank Greenberg: I think there are several substantial challenges. One, their structure makes it very difficult. They have a senior official, a regulator, who runs a division within the government for insurance. He keeps that job as long as he does what leadership wants him to do. He may not be sure what they want him to do.

For example, the president made a speech many months ago saying they are going to open up banking, insurance and a couple of additional sectors to foreign investment; nothing happened.

The reason was that the head of that division got changed. A new administrator came in who was not sure what the president wanted so he did nothing. Time went on and the international community said, “Wait a minute, you promised that you were going to do that and you didn’t do that.”

So the structure is such that it is very difficult. China can’t react as fast as it should. That will change, but it is going to take time.

R&I: That’s interesting, because during the financial crisis in 2008 there was talk that China, given their more centralized authority, could react more quickly, not less quickly.

Hank Greenberg: It turns out that it is harder to change, because they have one leader. My guess is that we’ll work it out sooner or later. Trump and Xi have to meet. That will result in some agreement that will get to them and they will have to finish the rest of the negotiations. I believe that will happen.

R&I: Obviously, you have a very unique perspective and experience in China. For American companies coming to China, what are some of the current challenges?


Hank Greenberg: Well, they very much want to do business in China. That’s due to the sheer size of the country, at 1.4 billion people. It’s a very big market and not just for insurance companies. It’s a whole range of companies that would like to have access to China as easily as Chinese companies have access to the United States. As I said previously, that has to be resolved.

It’s not going to be easy, because China has a history of not being treated well by other countries. The U.S. has been pretty good in that way. We haven’t taken advantage of China.

R&I: Your op-ed was very enlightening on that topic.

Hank Greenberg: President Xi wants to rebuild the “middle kingdom,” to what China was, a great country. Part of that was his takeover of the South China Sea rock islands during the Obama Administration; we did nothing. It’s a little late now to try and do something. They promised they would never militarize those islands. Then they did. That’s a real problem in Southern Asia. The other countries in that region are not happy about that.

R&I: One thing that has differentiated your company is that it is not a public company, and it is not a mutual company. We think you’re the only large insurance company with that structure at that scale. What advantages does that give you?

Hank Greenberg: Two things. First of all, we’re more than an insurance company. We have the traditional investment unit with the insurance company. Then we have a separate investment unit that we started, which is very successful. So we have a source of income that is diverse. We don’t have to underwrite business that is going to lose a lot of money. Not knowingly anyway.

R&I: And that’s because you are a private company?

Hank Greenberg: Yes. We attract a different type of person in a private company.

R&I: Do you think that enables you to react more quickly?

Hank Greenberg: Absolutely. When we left AIG there were three of us. Myself, Howie Smith and Ed Matthews. Howie used to run the internal financials and Ed Matthews was the investment guy coming out of Morgan Stanley when I was putting AIG together. We started with three people and now we have 3,500 and growing.

“I think technology can play a role in reducing operating expenses. In the last 70 years, you have seen the expense ratio of the industry rise, and I’m not sure the industry can afford a 35 percent expense ratio. But while technology can help, some additional fundamental changes will also be required.” — Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, chairman and CEO, C.V. Starr & Co. Inc.

R&I:  You being forced to leave AIG in 2005 really was an injustice, by the way. AIG wouldn’t have been in the position it was in 2008 if you had still been there.


Hank Greenberg: Absolutely not. We had all the right things in place. We met with the financial services division once a day every day to make sure they stuck to what they were supposed to do. Even Hank Paulson, the Secretary of Treasury, sat on the stand during my trial and said that if I’d been at the company, it would not have imploded the way it did.

R&I: And that fateful decision the AIG board made really affected the course of the country.

Hank Greenberg: So many people lost all of their net worth. The new management was taking on billions of dollars’ worth of risk with no collateral. They had decimated the internal risk management controls. And the government takeover of the company when the financial crisis blew up was grossly unfair.

From the time it went public, AIG’s value had increased from $300 million to $180 billion. Thanks to Eliot Spitzer, it’s now worth a fraction of that. His was a gross misuse of the Martin Act. It gives the Attorney General the power to investigate without probable cause and bring fraud charges without having to prove intent. Only in New York does the law grant the AG that much power.

R&I: It’s especially frustrating when you consider the quality of his own character, and the scandal he was involved in.

In early 2008, Spitzer was caught on a federal wiretap arranging a meeting with a prostitute at a Washington Hotel and resigned shortly thereafter.

Hank Greenberg: Yes. And it’s been successive. Look at Eric Schneiderman. He resigned earlier this year when it came out that he had abused several women. And this was after he came out so strongly against other men accused of the same thing. To me it demonstrates hypocrisy and abuse of power.

Schneiderman followed in Spitzer’s footsteps in leveraging the Martin Act against numerous corporations to generate multi-billion dollar settlements.

R&I: Starr, however, continues to thrive. You said you’re at 3,500 people and still growing. As you continue to expand, how do you deal with the challenge of attracting talent?

Hank Greenberg: We did something last week.

On September 16th, St. John’s University announced the largest gift in its 148-year history. The Starr Foundation donated $15 million to the school, establishing the Maurice R. Greenberg Leadership Initiative at St. John’s School of Risk Management, Insurance and Actuarial Science.

Hank Greenberg: We have recruited from St. John’s for many, many years. These are young people who want to be in the insurance industry. They don’t get into it by accident. They study to become proficient in this and we have recruited some very qualified individuals from that school. But we also recruit from many other universities. On the investment side, outside of the insurance industry, we also recruit from Wall Street.

R&I: We’re very interested in how you and other leaders in this industry view technology and how they’re going to use it.

Hank Greenberg: I think technology can play a role in reducing operating expenses. In the last 70 years, you have seen the expense ratio of the industry rise, and I’m not sure the industry can afford a 35 percent expense ratio. But while technology can help, some additional fundamental changes will also be required.

R&I: So as the pre-eminent leader of the insurance industry, what do you see in terms of where insurance is now and where it’s going?

Hank Greenberg: The country and the world will always need insurance. That doesn’t mean that what we have today is what we’re going to have 25 years from now.

How quickly the change comes and how far it will go will depend on individual companies and individual countries. Some will be more brave than others. But change will take place, there is no doubt about it.


More will go on in space, there is no question about that. We’re involved in it right now as an insurance company, and it will get broader.

One of the things you have to worry about is it’s now a nuclear world. It’s a more dangerous world. And again, we have to find some way to deal with that.

So, change is inevitable. You need people who can deal with change.

R&I:  Is there anything else, Mr. Greenberg, you want to comment on?

Hank Greenberg: I think I’ve covered it. &

The R&I Editorial Team can be reached at [email protected]