Contact us

For ADUs requiring fire protection, the choice is typically between traditional NFPA 13D sprinklers and Automist, with key differences in installation, water demand, and overall impact. Traditional systems require extensive ceiling pipework, high water flow (13–26 GPM), and often costly utility upgrades, while Automist uses compact, wall-mounted heads with flexible connections and operates on just 2.4 GPM from a standard domestic supply. It uses around 90% less water, reducing potential damage, and avoids many infrastructure costs and delays, making total installed costs often comparable or lower.

Yes — Automist can be used as an alternative to an NFPA 13D fire sprinkler system in domestic occupancies, where permitted by the local Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). Automist is not an extinguishing system; it is a fire suppression system that is specifically designed and Listed for domestic use, meeting the intent of NFPA 13D sprinkler protection.

Possibly. While insurance discounts or “policy credits” are determined on a case-by-case basis, Automist has already been used successfully to secure coverage and lower premiums for high-value homes — especially in wildfire-prone areas and PPC 10 risk classifications where traditional coverage is increasingly difficult to obtain.

As insurers tighten underwriting criteria due to rising wildfire risk and water damage claims, automatic discounts for standard fire suppression systems are becoming less common. However, Automist stands out as an innovative loss mitigation solution — not only by reducing fire damage, but also by minimizing the risk of excessive water damage, which is a major cost concern for insurers.

This comparison explains how Automist and traditional fire sprinklers differ in what happens after activation, particularly in terms of water use, damage, and insurance impact. While sprinklers are effective at controlling fires, they rely on heat build up and discharge large volumes of water broadly until manually shut off, often leading to significant secondary damage and costly repairs even in small incidents. They can also activate unintentionally due to impact, heat from non-fire sources, freezing pipes, or component failure. In contrast, Automist uses targeted water mist at much lower flow rates, activates earlier through verified fire detection, and shuts off automatically, resulting in minimal water use and limited damage in documented real-world events. These differences lead to distinct risk profiles, with sprinkler systems typically associated with lower frequency but higher severity claims, while water mist systems may reduce overall damage and disruption, though insurance treatment varies.

Traditional fire sprinkler quotes often exclude the cost of upgrading your water supply, which is why total costs can increase significantly. While the sprinkler system itself may cost as little as $5,000–$6,000, water utilities may require a larger meter to meet the system’s flow demand, adding both upfront installation fees and possible ongoing monthly charges. Depending on the property and infrastructure, these additional costs can range from a few thousand dollars to much higher in complex cases. Automist operates at significantly lower flow than conventional sprinklers – a standard domestic meter can handle the demand without upsizing.