Insurance won’t cover drone damage to your business

If drones cause damage to businesses and properties, the owners have to pay for repairing it. Insurance companies are washing their hands, citing their war clause.

Yrittajat.fi asked several insurers about their claims policies on drone damage. The answer was the same across the board: no payouts if a stray drone crashes into, say, a company’s premises or other property.

LähiTapiola’s communications team says all insurance policies include a war clause, under which policies are not valid in wartime.

“This is a fundamental principle of insurance worldwide. LähiTapiola’s property insurance therefore does not cover damage that occurs during a war or similar event capable of destabilizing the social order,” the insurer says.

LähiTapiola adds that the insurance industry hopes to open discussions with central government.

“Those discussions need to cover how Finland as a society prepares for the effects of war and potential damage when Finland is not at war but is feeling the knock-on effects of armed conflict in other countries.”

“Because insurers are not promising compensation for potential damage, the state must step in.”

Mikael Pentikäinen, Suomen Yrittäjät

If: assessed case by case

The insurer If also confirms that its policy terms include war-related exemption across all industries.

“We do not cover losses resulting from war. Individual incidents, such as drone-related cases, are always assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the damage is connected to war. If our customers encounter such situations, we advise them to follow official guidance and to contact us so we can assess whether the damage is covered,” the insurer says.

Fennia’s property insurance standard terms exclude damage caused by war or equivalent circumstances. Fennia says that stray Ukrainian drones entering Finnish territory are considered connected to acts of war, even where they were not intended to cause harm to Finland or Finnish people.

“War-related activity is fundamentally different in nature from the ordinary risks that insurance is designed to cover. Non-life insurers were not set up to insure risks connected to armed conflict, because those risks cannot be reliably modelled or priced. That is why they are excluded from coverage under the policy terms,” the insurer says.

Pentikäinen: a job for the state

Mikael Pentikäinen, CEO of Suomen Yrittäjät, the Finnish SME association, considers the drone threat real.

“Ukraine is understandably extending its strikes deep into Russia and also to ports and oil refineries near Finland. With bad luck, a stray drone can hit buildings and businesses too. That’s already happened in Romania. The damage can be significant. It is therefore important for individuals and businesses to know how losses will be compensated.”

Pentikäinen says it is important for the government to get ahead of the compensation question.

“Because insurers are not promising compensation for potential damage, the state must step in. I understand that a report has already been commissioned, which is good and important.”

The drone threat came to national attention this week when the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Finance announced on Wednesday that they had sent local authorities a recommendation letter urging them to review their operating procedures for drone threats. The recommendations were drawn up in cooperation with central government, the rescue services and the Association of Finnish Cities and Municipalities.

“Protecting people from danger and reducing foreseeable damage is at the core of what rescue services and municipalities do. Finnish society wants to protect its residents from new threats too,” said Interior Minister Mari Rantanen (Finns Party).

Article updated 11 June 2026 at 13.05: Fennia’s position added.

Are you a Suomen Yrittäjät member yet? Read about member benefits and advantages