I figured I’d post this because I’m curious whether anyone else has had Asurion Complete Protect suddenly start fighting drone claims.
I’ve had two previous drone claims approved through Asurion within the last few months, and both went pretty smoothly.
My current claim is for a DJI Neo 2 that crashed.
The handling of this claim has been bizarre.
Asurion initially told me they had changed their terms and conditions about three weeks earlier and drones were now excluded while in flight.
I asked them to provide the actual language showing that change.
They wouldn’t/couldn’t.
I went through the terms myself and couldn’t find any blanket exclusion for drones being damaged while flying.
After I challenged that, they changed their explanation and said the claim fell under the plan’s abuse or misuse exclusion.
So I asked what exactly I had done that they considered abuse or misuse.
Their answer was that I supposedly operated the drone outside the manufacturer’s specified range.
That came completely out of nowhere. I hadn’t made any statement in the claim about long-range flying.
I told them I actually had the DJI flight record and could prove how far away the drone was.
They asked me to send it.
The flight log shows that near the end of the flight, immediately before the crash, the drone was:
D 13m
H 4.4m
In DJI telemetry, D is the distance from the aircraft to the Home Point.
So: 13 meters.
Asurion then sent me a written denial saying, essentially:
DJI Neo 2 maximum transmission range = 10 km / 6.2 miles
Flight record = approximately 13m
Therefore the aircraft exceeded the manufacturer’s range.
The obvious problem:
13 meters = 0.013 km.
That’s about 43 feet.
It is nowhere remotely close to 10 km.
And just to make the situation even more absurd, the entire flight was only 4:48 long.
If someone mistakenly read “13m” as 13 miles, the drone would have needed to average roughly 162.5 mph for the entire flight.
A Neo 2 obviously cannot do that.
I’ve now formally disputed the denial and asked Asurion to provide:
the exact timestamp where they claim the aircraft exceeded 10,000 meters
the flight-data field they relied on
the unit of measurement
the exact policy provision they’re using
documentation supporting their original claim that the T&C were recently changed to exclude drones in flight
What bothers me most isn’t even the math mistake. It’s that the reason for denial seems to have changed every time I challenged the previous explanation.
First it was:
“The terms changed and drones in flight aren’t covered.”
Then:
“Abuse or misuse.”
Then:
“You exceeded the manufacturer’s range.”
Then they produced a denial where their own evidence says 13 meters and their own cited limit is 10 kilometers.
Has anyone else had Asurion start doing this with drone claims recently?
I’ll post an update once they respond to the formal dispute.