The California Central District Court ruled that a drone is still considered to be an aircraft, despite being unmanned and not carrying cargo. The case is Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Hollycal Production, Inc. et al. No. 5:18-cv-00768, 2018.

Hollycal Production Inc. used a drone to photograph a wedding in April 2016. During the photography of the event, the drone struck a guest in the head. The injury ended up necessitating surgery and resulted in loss of vision in one of the victim's eyes. The injured guest sued Hollycal in state court. Hollycal filed a claim with its insurer Tokio Marine unit Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, (Philadelphia) asking it to defend the suit and to pay any resulting damages. Philadelphia agreed to defend the company under a reservation of rights. Soon after, Philadelphia filed suit in federal district court, seeking summary judgment of whether Hollycal was entitled to coverage under the commercial general liability policy.

Philadelphia argued that the CGL policy specifically excluded injury caused by drones because there was no coverage for injury “arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any flying craft or vehicle, including. . . aircraft. . . “ or from any “propelled objects.”