Aerial imagery underwriting verification: what the applicant said, what the image shows and what the inspector found, side by side
No bind, cancel or nonrenewal resting on one out-of-date picture.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Checking what an aerial or satellite image shows against the application, the inspection and property records before an underwriting decision rests on it — and checking the image itself is current, sharp and of the right house. Aerial Imagery Verification does this with seven agents and puts every source side by side, so the homeowners underwriter decides from all of it.
How to choose AI solutions for insurance →
Updated
The application says no pool and a 2020 roof. The aerial capture shows a pool, a trampoline and a roof in two tones. The exterior inspection adds 31 photos, and the permits sit in county records. Each source is read by a different person on a different day, and nobody lines them up before the policy is bound.
Regulators have noticed. Maryland Bulletin 25-10 says low-resolution, blurry or dated images cannot justify a cancellation, nonrenewal or claim denial. Massachusetts and New Hampshire say cosmetic wear is never the basis on its own, and New Hampshire requires a physical inspection on any dispute. One state found an image of the wrong house. An action that rests on one out-of-date picture is now hard to defend.
Estimated split for one homeowners imagery referral, by hand and with the solution — about 70 minutes against 11.
Seven agents outline every feature, check every image and price every mismatch; the underwriter decides.
Monday 12 October. Daniel and Priya Castellano have applied for an HO-3 on 1127 Wrenfield Court, Ellicott City, Maryland — Coverage A $612,000, effective Sun 1 Nov 2026, through Joanna Pratt at Bayside Lane Insurance Agency. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Renata opens her referrals: 12 today, 6 new business and 6 renewals across 7 states. Each row shows how many of the 9 attributes disagree, how old the image is against that state’s rule, and what the agents recommend. Three rest on one image — none of them gets an adverse action until a second source arrives.
Castellano · 6 of 9 disagree · Bind with conditions · due today
The 14 Aug 2026 capture fills the screen: 7.5 cm, 59 days old, parcel offset 0.6 m. Every feature carries an outline and a pill saying what the application said and what the image shows. Numbered pins mark the inspection photos, and the said-vs-seen ledger runs beside the image.
“App: no pool · Image: in-ground pool 16×32 ft”
Seven agents read five sources and three captures in turn: the application signed 6 Oct with its 41 answers, the parcel match, the features on the image, the Fieldline report, the permits. The premium reads “reconciling…” until the last line is priced. The whole run took 3 min 40 s.
Inspection reader: “Fieldline report, 2 Oct · 31 photos · 11 roof notes: 2 bear on the risk, 9 cosmetic”
The 21 Jun 2023 capture’s footprint sits 31 m west of parcel 02-118-447 and matches 1125 Wrenfield Court. The tolerance is 8 m, so it is kept in the file, marked “Not this property”, and no agent reads a feature from it. The two captures on the parcel, 14 Aug 2026 and 3 Apr 2025, carry the findings.
“Not this property — excluded. No finding is read from it.”
Nine attributes down the side; the application, both on-parcel captures, the struck-through 2023 capture, the inspection and the property records across the top. Each cell opens its source. The pool is on the image, the 2025 capture, inspection photo 12 and pool permit P19-00352 from Jun 2019 — four sources, not one.
Fieldline’s exterior inspection of 2 Oct: 31 photos, on site 10:05–10:52. The inspection reader classifies all 11 roof observations — 2 bear on the risk, 9 cosmetic. Photo 7 shows the north slope at 13–16 years, so the 2020 date covers only half the roof. Photo 8 is algae streaks on intact shingles.
Limit: the inspection reader never upgrades a cosmetic observation.
Roof age is partly true: rated at the oldest slope, 15 years, +$208. The oak over 28% of the north slope is a condition — trim within 60 days, $0. The streaks are cosmetic and support no action. Occupancy and size agree. With the pool (+$186) and the solar array (+$94), the premium goes from $2,148 to $2,636.
“Roof staining · Cosmetic · $0 · cosmetic: supports no action”
Confirm the pool has no diving board or slide and accept Coverage E at $300,000. Will both named insureds sign trampoline exclusion NM-HO 418, or remove the trampoline before 1 Nov? Is the 22-panel array owned or leased? Send the May 2020 roofing invoice. Image crops dated 14 Aug 2026 and the inspection photos go with it. Nothing is sent until Renata says so.
The decision shows the premium line by line from the Maryland manual, four conditions of binding, and every rule checked: the image is 59 days old, 7.5 cm with 3% cloud and shadow on the roof, of this house, every material line has a second source, cosmetic staining carries no action. Bind as applied is not open; decline is not supported.
Renata signs: 1127 Wrenfield Court, effective Sun 1 Nov 2026, $2,636 a year, 4 conditions, 4 questions sent with the signature. Nothing adverse is taken, so Helen Strand’s co-signature is not needed. Every line cites its image, photo or permit on the audit trail.
“Nothing adverse is taken, so no co-signature is needed.”
The same file, seen by the four people who carry it — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents outline every feature, check every image and price every mismatch; the underwriter decides.
Reads the homeowner application, prior carrier and producer notes into the attributes the ledger checks, and records the date signed and the producer.
Places each capture on the insured parcel by geocode, parcel boundary and building footprint, and measures the offset.
Outlines pools, trampolines, solar arrays, outbuildings, overhang, roof slopes and staining on each capture, measures them, and scores capture quality: date, resolution, cloud and shadow.
Reads inspection reports and photos, roof and mitigation certificates, and classifies each roof observation as bearing on the risk or cosmetic.
Reads assessor records, permits and homestead records, and dates the roof from the permits.
Builds the said-vs-seen ledger — one line per attribute with every source — prices each line from the rating manual, and recommends bind, bind with conditions, re-inspect or decline.
Writes one message to the producer with every question and its evidence, and drafts the policyholder evidence pack for any adverse action.
Decides; manager co-signs adverse actions. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Underwriters ask in plain words — about a line on the ledger, a capture, a state’s bulletin, or what a finding does to the premium. Every answer cites the image, photo, permit or rule behind it.
Why is the 2023 image not used?
Because it is not of this house. Its building footprint sits 31 m west of parcel 02-118-447 and matches 1125 Wrenfield Court, the neighbour’s gable-roofed house. The tolerance is 8 m, so the parcel matcher excluded it before any feature was read. The two captures on the parcel, 14 Aug 2026 and 3 Apr 2025, carry the findings.
Can we nonrenew over the roof staining?
No. Fieldline’s photo 8 shows algae on intact shingles. Maryland’s Bulletin 25-10 allows an image to support an action only when it gives a clear, accurate and current view of a real condition, and Massachusetts and New Hampshire say cosmetic wear is never enough on its own. Norland’s guideline G-7 says the same. What does move the price is the roof’s age: the north slope is 13–16 years, so it is rated at 15.
What does the pool change on the premium?
+$186 a year. Rule 12.3 adds a $148 pool surcharge and requires Coverage E of at least $300,000 — the application asked for $100,000, which adds $38. The pool is on both on-parcel captures and the inspector photographed the 4 ft fence and self-latching gate, so it rests on three sources, not one. With the solar array (+$94) and the roof rated at 15 years (+$208), the premium goes from $2,148 to $2,636.
Which referrals today rest on one image?
Three, and none of them gets an adverse action until a second source arrives: Halvorsen in New Hampshire (22 months old, disputed — a physical inspection, which New Hampshire requires), Moreau in Maryland (cloud over 41% of the roof — re-inspect) and Lindgren in Pennsylvania (pool seen, no inspection yet — a question to the producer).
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Every change is versioned, tested on last quarter’s referrals and on the audit trail.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Oldest image that may support an adverse action | 12 months | 5 to 24 months · the state’s limit applies when shorter |
| Resolution for a condition finding | 7.5 cm or finer | 7.5 · 10 · 15 cm or finer |
| Parcel offset tolerance | 8 m | 5 · 8 · 12 m |
| Cloud, shadow or tree cover above which a capture cannot judge the roof | 30% of the roof | 20 · 30 · 40% of the roof |
| Roof age rated at, when slopes differ | Oldest slope | Oldest slope · Largest slope · Permit date |
| Second source before any surcharge, decline, cancellation or nonrenewal | On | On · Off |
| Physical inspection on dispute | In every state | On · Off |
| Questions to the producer | One message per referral | One message per referral · One message per producer per day |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (Troutman Pepper Locke, Using Aerial Imagery in Insurance and Related AI: Emerging Regulatory Themes, Mar 2026 — image-age expectations of 5 to 24 months; Moody’s analysis reported by E&E News — insurance mispriced in half of the homes surveyed). State rules are summarised from Maryland Bulletin 25-10, Massachusetts Bulletin 2025-02, New Hampshire INS 25-016-AB and the other bulletins named; the wrong-house complaint was reported by Leader’s Edge, Apr 2025. People, companies, addresses and policies named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Checking what an aerial or satellite image shows against the application, the inspection and property records before an underwriting decision rests on it — and checking the image itself is current, sharp and of the right house. Aerial Imagery Verification does this with seven agents and puts every source side by side, so the homeowners underwriter decides from all of it.
The imagery analyst outlines and measures each feature on the capture and the reconciler sets it against the application answer. A pool the application left out appears as “App: no pool · Image: in-ground pool 16×32 ft”, with the inspection photo and any permit beside it, and the premium effect from your rating manual.
The parcel matcher places every capture on the insured parcel by geocode, parcel boundary and building footprint and measures the offset. A footprint further off than the tolerance — 8 m by default — is marked “Not this property” and no feature is read from it.
Not in this solution. No surcharge, decline, cancellation or nonrenewal goes ahead on one image: a second source, such as an inspection photo or a permit, is required. Dated captures only corroborate, cosmetic wear never supports an action, and a dispute triggers a physical inspection in every state.
Each referral is checked against the state the risk is in. The working solution carries Maryland Bulletin 25-10, Massachusetts Bulletin 2025-02, New Hampshire INS 25-016-AB, the Connecticut and Pennsylvania notices, Delaware Bulletin No. 150, North Carolina 25-B-09, Alabama 2025-03 and Michigan 2025-12-INS, alongside your own underwriting guidelines.
It reads both the image and the inspection, and dates the roof from permits — while treating a permit as evidence of the work, not proof of its full scope. By default the roof is rated at the oldest slope; you can choose largest slope or permit date in settings.
Yes. The agents recommend bind, bind with conditions, re-inspect or decline; the homeowners underwriter decides and signs, and the underwriting manager co-signs every decline, cancellation and nonrenewal. Nothing goes to a producer or policyholder until the underwriter sends it.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your underwriting guidelines, rating manual, imagery and inspection sources and a sample of past referrals — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own referrals first.
Only the renewals whose hazard or roof changed reach an underwriter.
1-min demoRate & Form Filing AutomationGaps caught before a regulator sees them; objections answered from the record.
1-min demoCompetitor Rate Filing AnalysisEvery competitor filing searchable, each answer cited to its filing page.
1-min demoWe’ll run Aerial Imagery Verification on a sample of your own imagery referrals.