In 1930, John Brush, Sr. and his brother-in-law, Willard Punnett, opened a small shop for the manufacture of safes at 545 West Avenue in Rochester, New York. The Brush-Punnett Company was a pioneer in the stamping of steel safes. During a long and arduous startup period that spanned the Great Depression and World War II, the company had some success by selling safes to Vassar College for its dormitories and steel skids to Eastman Kodak. In 1943, after purchasing his sister and brother's-in-law interest, John Brush Sr. became the sole owner of the company. It was Brush's intent to pass the business on to his sons John Jr., Richard, and Robert. John Jr. joined the business in 1954 after serving in the U.S. Army Air Corps, and graduating from St. Lawrence University and Harvard Business School. The company changed its name to the John D. Brush & Co. in 1955. Brush & Co. moved into a new plant at 900 Linden Avenue, Rochester, New York in 1968, with over. Then, in 1987, it began doing business under the name Sentry Group, in order to better identify the company with its trademark name safes - "Sentry". Sentry Group produces more fire-resistant chests, safes, security storage containers, and gun safes than any other company in the world and has won numerous awards for its product design and retail service. It was awarded "Vendor of the Year" from Lowe'sin 1999, Wal-Mart in 2001, and OfficeMax in 2002. In 2014 Sentry was sold to Master Lock, which is a division of Fortune Brands Home & Security. In 2016 Master Lock closed the Rochester, NY based production facilities and moved production to Mexico.
Legal cases
In 1991, Michael Redman of Virginia brought a product liability suit against Sentry Group after his coin collection was stolen out of his Sentry Supreme Safe, Model #5570. Redman noticed the safe in a Value-Tique advertisement that appeared in the magazine Coin World. The magazine had advertised the safe as a “burglar deterrent”. Redman won the juryverdict in district court, but the case was appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision, holding that Redman failed to present evidence demonstrating that the safe violated industry standards, government standards, or reasonable consumer expectations. Redman's safe was specifically designed to meet fire-resistant standards, but not “burglar deterrent” standards, even though it did provide “a degree of protection against burglary.” An expert witnesstestified that materials that enhance burglar-resistance on safes consequently reduce the fire-resistance.
