How can the Hadiths "Whoever dies defending his property is a martyr" be reconciled with the jurisprudential principle "Preserving life takes precedence over preserving property"?

The argument is posed that the certain benefit of preserving property takes precedence over the presumed benefit of preserving life. Whoever defends their property and is killed is a martyr, because the certain benefit of preserving property takes precedence over the presumed benefit of preserving life. The man who defends his property does not know whether his life will be lost or not, yet scholars have unanimously agreed on the permissibility of offering property as ransom for life, and that the prohibition against giving money ("do not give it") does not imply prohibition, but rather signifies the permissibility of fighting to protect property.