Ok, so the issue isn't "aircraft controlled from ground vs aircraft controlled from the air", it's private property being spied on/inspected without consent or

Ok, so the issue isn't "aircraft controlled from ground vs aircraft controlled from the air", it's private property being spied on/inspected without consent or notice. That's illegal for a landlord, and should be illegal for insurance companies. Moreover, their identification is (from the article) erroneous, and their risk claim is false (per the article the person is not in a fire zone). Failing to acknowledge those are erroneous and continuing to terminate the policy is BS, and I assume fraudulent: if the law allows an insurance company to do zero-notice termination of policy without a justification I'm sure that they would have done that instead, rather than providing any justification that could prove wrong.