In recent days, Poland has been in the spotlight due to airspace violations by Russian combat drones. Some of them have fallen on residential areas, damaging homes and cars. For affected owners, a fundamental question immediately arises: who will cover the repair costs, since they didn't bring this threat upon themselves?
Insurance, of course, comes to the forefront. Standard property insurance policies most often include coverage for the effects of "aircraft crashes"—which, in theory, would cover both aircraft and drones. Experts point out, however, that the devil is in the details. Most insurance policies contain exclusions of liability that exclude damages resulting from acts of war, acts of terrorism, or states of emergency. This means that if the damage resulted from military operations—and the flight and crash of a Russian combat drone are examples of these—the insurer may refuse to pay compensation, citing the "acts of war" provision.
Thus, the owner of a destroyed home may be left with a loss, despite having diligently paid their premiums. This problem exposes the weakness of the insurance system in the face of modern threats that defy traditional risk categories. The question arises: shouldn't the burden of compensation fall on the state?
In recent days, media reports have also emerged that insurers, under pressure from society and reputational concerns, may in some cases decide to pay compensation even if standard exclusions would theoretically limit their liability. This precedent demonstrates that public pressure can influence insurance practices in emergency situations.
The Constitution provides for the possibility of seeking compensation from the state for damages caused by unlawful actions by public authorities. However, in practice, it would be difficult to prove the culpability of the Polish authorities in a situation where a drone is deliberately launched by an enemy and used for a military attack. In such circumstances, a viable solution could be the establishment of a special, state-funded compensation fund, which would operate on the principle of rapid assistance to injured citizens, regardless of insurers' liability. Only then could the state attempt to recover the funds through international procedures or from the perpetrator of the attack.
The Russian drone incidents demonstrate that liability for damage caused by armed conflict is not only a legal issue, but also a social one. Citizens expect protection not only from life-threatening situations but also from material consequences. If insurers invoke exclusions and the state fails to provide compensation, victims will be left without support.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of September 16, 2025.
Author / Editor of the series:
