4 ms·

Are you the guys using smart home (is that the right word?) devices to try and mitigate homeowners claims by preventing or catching problems as they occur (pres

Are you the guys using smart home (is that the right word?) devices to try and mitigate homeowners claims by preventing or catching problems as they occur (presumably to respond quickly and limit the extent of damage)? If so, that's a pretty good idea. Carriers already give discounts for things like alarms, sprinklers, etc, but virtually none partner directly with a company that can better assure the quality of monitoring. I'm sure there's a privacy hurdle to work on, but it has to do something to loss activity, right? Best of luck!

jon-wood 9y ago
We are indeed. Out philosophy is that its better for everyone to prevent a claim before it escalates into one. To that end we provide smoke, flood, motion, and door sensors, along with an (optional) camera. We've got some other cool things in the pipeline capable of not only detecting problems but also responding to them before they become a crisis. You're definitely right that there are privacy issues to be answered but we try to be as transparent as possible about what we're doing with customer's data, and by being stringent about who has access to sensor data.
- SmellTheGlove 9y ago
  As appliances become smarter, there's probably a monitoring play there too - maybe some coverage that blends the concepts in product warranties as well as home warranties.
- rubyfan 9y ago
  There are a few unresolved issues with the preventative / home sensor approach. 1. Sensors dramatically increase the acquisition cost for a policy. 2. It is unproven that sensors will mitigate losses. We all see the potential but there just isn't data there to tell us that. If I could prove #2 then #1 becomes simple math, if the CBA is there then incumbent carriers will adopt it. It's just not there yet to justify doing outside of startups and market tests. 3. When carriers pick a partner and get into the preventative game then there's some liability that opens up if things go wrong. One could argue that the carrier is already covering the risk - this just means the preventative offering has to line up with coverage being bought. 4. Last but not least, the biggest source of losses is CAT related in property. Sensors will get at the second tier water and fire - again loss avoidance has to justify the sensors unless the preventative side is an ongoing fee service.
  - jon-wood 9y ago
    Sensors definitely increase the acquisition costs, although at least early on there's customers who see them as a benefit they're willing to trade the usual cashback/discounts/etc for, so its not as bad as you might think. We're also looking at ways to reduce the cost of sensors over time. As for proving that sensors mitigate losses, even in our initial beta period we've seen a couple of potentially large escape of water claims avoided by early detection of a leak, and that's before we start introducing truly preventative measures as opposed to just detection. We're very focused initially on escape of water because those are in fact the largest source of losses in the industry - fire is fairly rare, theft tends to be pretty cheap to handle claims for, but a leaking dishwasher left while someone is at work for the day can easily require replacing everything on the ground floor of a small house.
    - rayhano 9y ago
      So I wanted to try Neos after meeting a Zoopla exec who said they had invested. But when the premium came out at over 4x my existing renewal quote I became less enthused. And then I saw the Excess Charge (for making a claim) was £1,000 vs the £250 norm, I ran away to the nearest comparison site to find vanilla home insurance. I think the conversion process might need looking at to make the benefits less nakedly focused on cost.
      - jon-wood 9y ago
        Give us another go in a few weeks - our initial trials we were partnered with Hiscox, and were bound to only their (really expensive) policies. We're now in the final stages of rolling out our own policies which are much more competitive - quoting on my own house has our policies coming out cheaper than my current home insurance policy, with much better service.
        rayhano 9y ago
        Awesome, looking forward to using something that adds value beyond 'invisible protection'

jon-wood 9y ago

We are indeed. Out philosophy is that its better for everyone to prevent a claim before it escalates into one. To that end we provide smoke, flood, motion, and door sensors, along with an (optional) camera. We've got some other cool things in the pipeline capable of not only detecting problems but also responding to them before they become a crisis. You're definitely right that there are privacy issues to be answered but we try to be as transparent as possible about what we're doing with customer's data, and by being stringent about who has access to sensor data.

SmellTheGlove 9y ago
As appliances become smarter, there's probably a monitoring play there too - maybe some coverage that blends the concepts in product warranties as well as home warranties.
rubyfan 9y ago
There are a few unresolved issues with the preventative / home sensor approach. 1. Sensors dramatically increase the acquisition cost for a policy. 2. It is unproven that sensors will mitigate losses. We all see the potential but there just isn't data there to tell us that. If I could prove #2 then #1 becomes simple math, if the CBA is there then incumbent carriers will adopt it. It's just not there yet to justify doing outside of startups and market tests. 3. When carriers pick a partner and get into the preventative game then there's some liability that opens up if things go wrong. One could argue that the carrier is already covering the risk - this just means the preventative offering has to line up with coverage being bought. 4. Last but not least, the biggest source of losses is CAT related in property. Sensors will get at the second tier water and fire - again loss avoidance has to justify the sensors unless the preventative side is an ongoing fee service.
- jon-wood 9y ago
  Sensors definitely increase the acquisition costs, although at least early on there's customers who see them as a benefit they're willing to trade the usual cashback/discounts/etc for, so its not as bad as you might think. We're also looking at ways to reduce the cost of sensors over time. As for proving that sensors mitigate losses, even in our initial beta period we've seen a couple of potentially large escape of water claims avoided by early detection of a leak, and that's before we start introducing truly preventative measures as opposed to just detection. We're very focused initially on escape of water because those are in fact the largest source of losses in the industry - fire is fairly rare, theft tends to be pretty cheap to handle claims for, but a leaking dishwasher left while someone is at work for the day can easily require replacing everything on the ground floor of a small house.
  - rayhano 9y ago
    So I wanted to try Neos after meeting a Zoopla exec who said they had invested. But when the premium came out at over 4x my existing renewal quote I became less enthused. And then I saw the Excess Charge (for making a claim) was £1,000 vs the £250 norm, I ran away to the nearest comparison site to find vanilla home insurance. I think the conversion process might need looking at to make the benefits less nakedly focused on cost.
    - jon-wood 9y ago
      Give us another go in a few weeks - our initial trials we were partnered with Hiscox, and were bound to only their (really expensive) policies. We're now in the final stages of rolling out our own policies which are much more competitive - quoting on my own house has our policies coming out cheaper than my current home insurance policy, with much better service.
      - rayhano 9y ago
        Awesome, looking forward to using something that adds value beyond 'invisible protection'