Can Sprinklers Reduce Insurance by 50%?

The debate about the efficacy of sprinkler use tends to hang on one thing: cost.

Click here to view Figure 1.

Yes, sprinklers work. They are a proven technology, but the stumbling block remains whether they are worth the investment, given that other fireproofing that is more cost-effective will often do a job more than good enough to allow people to evacuate a building.

The insurance industry, unsurprisingly, is a significant backer of sprinkler use — anything that protects assets and is likely to cause less damage, therefore a smaller claim, is likely to be popular. The UK insurance industry alone is responsible for almost GB pound 4 trillion (US$5.4 trillion) worth of property. Every working day, around GB pound 200 million (US$270 million) is paid out by insurers, and this includes around GB pound 5 billion ($6.7 billion) worth of property losses each year.

So, why is it that the perception remains that insurance companies will not reduce premiums when a building owner takes the initiative to install a sprinkler set?

Up to half price insurance

At the recent Fire Sector Summit, Chris Hanks, commercial general manager at Allianz, and chair of the FPA’s RISC Authority, was challenged by the audience over his assertion that the installation of sprinklers would lead directly to a reduced premium somewhere in the order of 50%.

The man from Allianz is “annoying me no end” said one gentleman in the audience. He wanted to know why insurers that he spoke to were not offering reduced premiums.

In response, Hanks explained:

My basic trade, my apprenticeship, was in underwriting. Underwriting is simple maths. If you have a sprinkler in a building you will receive reduced premiums. We will charge half as much.

This claim was met with derision in the audience, but another member of the insurance industry, representing Zurich, echoed Hank’s assertion that they would give sprinkler discounts “in the order of what [Hanks] said.”

Intrigued by this clear discrepancy between the insurer’s view and those of building owners, IFSEC Global reached out to an insurance underwriter in the city, Chaucer. Richard Everall is a property underwriter at the firm, and he told us:

On some of our SMEs we offer a 5-20 per cent reduction dependent on the category of construction and occupancy when sprinklers are installed. That is probably a good rule of thumb across the board.

However, it depends on a whole range of factors. For instance a thatched property could receive a good discount but very much dependent on the type, age, and presence of an open fire etc.

For a recognised quality sprinkler system in an appropriately exposed occupancy 30 per cent seems to be a fairly standard reduction. This can go up to 50 per cent in some examples where a highly fire-exposed occupancy and construction is serviced with the Rolls Royce of systems. This is of course on larger commercial risks.

When it comes to private homes and sprinkler use, they are often not relevant and even if installed, the water damage caused can be so detrimental that they contribute to the loss.

We also asked Everall what a building owner would have to do to receive a premium reduction with their sprinkler system:

To confirm a reduced rate, we tend to need a survey report with the type and category of sprinkler system and maintenance information. However, even if a survey is not supplied, the insured must give a fair representation of the sprinklers in place or this could jeopardize the cover.

Do you have a sprinkler system? Has it helped reduce your premiums? Let us know.

Related posts:

• Was Detention Centre Fire Inevitable Without Sprinklers?
• Decline in House Building Blamed on Sprinkler Regulations
• 3 Years Until Most New Builds in Wales Will Require Sprinklers