The Problem
Most IoT loss-prevention studies don’t survive actuarial scrutiny — underpowered samples, uncorrected selection bias, and hidden program costs have left carriers unable to trust the ROI case for smart-home safety programs, or to justify scaling one past a pilot.
Why It Happens
Proving a sensor prevented a claim runs into three structural problems: there’s no dated invoice for a loss that never happened, early results are skewed by anti-selection bias and poor test design, and the real benefit only emerges once a program has matured well beyond its first few months. Most vendor studies are sized and timed to miss all three.
The Solution
Back solutions that have already cleared the actuarial bar — tens of thousands of device-exposure years, cohort-level (not anecdotal) evidence, and documented, auditable repair records — rather than programs still running on pilot-stage promises.
Results
The synthesized results from four home insurance partners with mature deployments and statistically relevant underwriting years of data are as follows:
- 60% of non-weather water losses occur on the pressurized side of the water system (Mains water)
- 40% of non-weather water losses occur on the drain side of the water system
- 60% reduction in the frequency of non-weather water losses coming from the pressurized side of the water system
- ROI of 40% in mass market homes, 163% in mass affluent homes, and 980% in high-net-worth homes
