Just reading the the definitions in my insurance policy and saw this, made me chuckle!
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle means a powered, aerial vehicle (other than a balloon or kite) which does not have a human pilot on board, flies autonomously or is piloted remotely, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, is not classified as a guided weapon or similar one-shot device designed for the delivery of munitions.
So you can’t buy a cruise missile, use it to blow shit up and claim the loss on insurance? That’s so unfair!
Reminds me of this story…
"A lawyer in Charlotte, North Carolina, bought a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire. A month later, after smoking all the cigars, he filed a claim against the insurance company, claiming that the cigars had been destroyed “in a series of small fires”. Naturally, the insurance company refused to pay, arguing that he had consumed the cigars in the normal way. The lawyer sued and won. The judge concluded that, on the wording of the policy, the insurance company was liable - it had failed to limit its liability by defining what would amount to an “unacceptable fire”.
The company, rather than incur the costs of appeal, paid up $15,000, whereupon it reported the lawyer to the police. He was arrested and subsequently convicted on 24 counts of arson - intentionally burning insured property - and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and a $15,000 fine."
[edit}Oops, just had a quick fact check, it’s untrue: Fantastic tales | Law | The Guardian . Still, makes you wish it were true.[/edit]
@FlyByMe would you believe only today I hear about a case in Michigan where a guy drops off his Jeep for an oil change. One of the dealer’s staff gets into car, cannot use a manual gear box, nor does he have a licence, runs into and kills a co-worker. The lawyer for the dead guy have to sue…Yes, the owner of the car. Apparently Michigan have a ‘No Fault’ Law or something.
Seems crazy to me.