Company Overview of Defender Security Company
Defender Security Company, doing business as Protect Your Home, provides and installs security equipment for homes in the United States. The company offers monitor, arm, and disarm systems; allows users to view real-time video of their home; enables users to get email and text alerts; offers alarm systems with monitored burglary service; and provides system controls, home monitored fire alarm and smoke detectors, home security cameras, burglar alarm monitoring systems, home carbon monoxide detector monitoring systems, emergency medical alert systems, and home flood detectors and water alarms. The company was founded in 1995 and is based in Indianapolis, Indiana, with installation branches in...
3750 Priority Way South Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46240
Founded in 1995
Key Executives for Defender Security Company
Chief Executive Officer and President
Vice President of Strategic Initiatives
Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2015.
Defender Security Company Key Developments
Defender Promotes Jim Boyce from President to President and CEO
Jan 12 15
DEFENDER announced its continued growth and success with the promotion of Jim Boyce from President to President and CEO. DEFENDER's Founder and CEO, David P. Lindsey, will now serve as Chairman of the board. The promotion is influenced by the company's success and Boyce's hand in leading that success since joining DEFENDER in 2010. Boyce, a native of Boston, Mass., joined DEFENDER's board of directors in 2010 and became the company's chief operating officer in October 2011. In June 2014, Boyce was called on to take the president's role. Prior to joining DEFENDER, Boyce served on the executive teams at Procter & Gamble and Convergys, each headquartered in Cincinnati, OH.
InnerWorkings, Inc. Signs Marketing Management Agreement with DEFENDER
May 29 14
InnerWorkings Inc. announced that it signed a new marketing management agreement with DEFENDER. InnerWorkings will collaborate with DEFENDER to develop and deploy highly segmented direct marketing materials across the DEFENDER national footprint. Additionally, as part of the partnership, InnerWorkings will provide onsite resources to work cohesively with DEFENDER's marketing team. InnerWorkings also will manage United States Postal Service compliance for DEFENDER to ensure program-wide optimization.
Kami Brown Files Class Action Complaint Against Defender Security Co
Apr 14 14
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana held breach of contract and bad faith claims against an insured stemming from telephonic communications it recorded without an individual's consent were excluded under the insured's commercial general liability insurance policy and, therefore, the insurer had no duty to defend the insured. Kami Brown filed a class action complaint against Defender Security Co., alleging she had telephonic communications with certain employees, agents and/or representatives of Defender that were recorded without her consent. The complaint asserted Defender's 'acts and practice violated, which prohibits the recording of confidential communications made by telephone without the consent of all parties to the communication, which prohibits the recording of any communications made from a cellular or cordless telephone without the consent of all parties to the communication. Defender provided timely notice to First Mercury Insurance Co. of the lawsuit, asserting the suit fell within the 'advertising injury' and 'personal injury' coverage of the policy. After receiving notice of the complaint, First Mercury denied defense and indemnity coverage under the policy. Defender then brought an action against First Mercury, asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. First Mercury moved to dismiss, arguing the allegations set forth in the Brown complaint clearly fell outside the policy's coverage. The district court granted First Mercury's motion. Under the advertising injury and personal injury provisions in the policy, coverage required that the injury arise from publication of material that violates a person's right of privacy. For the underlying allegations in the Brown complaint to potentially fall within the First Mercury policy, Brown must have alleged that Defender published material, either orally or in written form, that violated Brown's right of privacy. The district court noted that, in Defender's case, the only dispute was whether Brown's allegation that Defender recorded her telephone conversation in which she revealed personal information and then stored that recorded information constituted 'publication' under the terms of the policy. The court was not persuaded that it did since the allegation that Brown shared personal information with Defender during her call established at most only that she published information about herself, not that Defender published information about her.
Similar Private Companies By Industry
Recent Private Companies Transactions
|No transactions available in the past 12 months.|