Why this matters more to a condominium association than to a homeowner

Imagery-driven underwriting hits association-governed property hardest, for a structural reason. A large flat or low-slope roof over a multi-unit building is exactly the kind of surface an aerial survey renders badly — ponding, patching, algal streaking and normal weathering all read as degradation from above, and none of it can be distinguished from a failure without someone on the roof.

An association also has more to lose. Nonrenewal of a master policy is not an inconvenience; it is a covenant default under most declarations, a lender problem for every owner refinancing, and in practice a forced move to a surplus-lines market at a substantially higher premium. That decision now has procedural requirements attached to it.

The right that actually helps boards

The most immediately usable sentence in the Bulletin is this one:

“An insured is entitled to review all satellite and aerial images relied upon by an insurer to support a cancellation, nonrenewal, or claim denial.”

That is a right to see the evidence, and it is stated without qualification. An association that receives a nonrenewal notice referring to roof condition should ask for the images, in writing, immediately — along with the written summary the Bulletin requires and the date stamp.

The Bulletin also puts weight behind a complaint. “[I]n the event of a complaint contesting any adverse insurer action, the insurer may be required to show independent confirmation of any issue discovered through the use of satellite data.” The Department encourages insurers to share images with insureds before acting, so that an insured has “a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence that such images are unreliable or that repairs have been made to rectify conditions shown in the images.”

So the sequence for a board is: get the images and the summary; check the date stamp against your own maintenance record; document repairs already completed; and, if the answer is a satellite image and nothing else, say so to the Department's Consumer Protection Division.

A checklist for the nonrenewal letter on your desk

• Ask what the decision rests on. If it is satellite imagery alone, the Bulletin says the insurer may not do that. If it is aerial imagery, test it against the three conditions.
• Check the date stamp. Older than twelve months is outside the Bulletin's tolerance, and a roof replaced since the image was taken is the strongest possible answer.
• Demand the written summary. Condition (2) requires the images to be accompanied by a summary identifying the specific noncompliant conditions. An image with no summary does not meet the standard the Department has set.
• Do not concede “degradation” from streaking. The Bulletin singles out streaking and discolouration as insufficient on their own. Algal growth on a shingle roof is a cosmetic condition, and the Department has said imagery of it cannot independently carry a nonrenewal.
• Keep your own evidence current. A reserve study, a dated roof inspection and photographs of completed repairs are what an association submits in response. Associations that have none of that are relying entirely on the insurer's file.

Two limits worth stating honestly

First, the Bulletin says of itself, on its face, that it “is not legally binding on either the Department or the reader.” It states the Department's current position and its reading of KRS 304.12-230 and KRS 304.20-320. It is guidance, not a regulation, and it does not create a private right of action.

Second, it does not prohibit imagery-based underwriting. An insurer that flies a drone, produces a clear dated image and a written summary of specific noncompliant conditions has done what the Bulletin asks. The Bulletin regulates the quality of the evidence, not the decision.

The artificial-intelligence tail

One paragraph points somewhere the industry is moving quickly: insurers “using artificial intelligence programs to enhance, interpret, or otherwise review satellite or aerial images should familiarize themselves with the requirements set forth in Bulletin 2024-02 regarding the use of artificial intelligence systems in insurance.”

In practice, an automated roof-condition score derived from imagery is where a nonrenewal decision is now often made. A board contesting one should ask not only for the image but for how the conclusion was reached — the Department has already told insurers that both bulletins apply.

What to watch next

Kentucky has issued no insurance advisory opinion since AO 2024-01, and no 806 KAR regulation on this subject is pending. The next movement, if it comes, would be either a regulation giving the Bulletin binding force or Department enforcement action arising from complaints. Complaints go to the Consumer Protection Division at (502) 564-6034 or [email protected].

Separately, the imagery question sits alongside a much tighter Kentucky market for post-loss help: the General Assembly imposed a two-year moratorium on new public adjuster licences in April 2026.