In the United States Supreme Court case of United Surety Company v. American Fruit Product Company in 1914, the court was tasked with determining whether a surety company could be held liable for damages incurred by a fruit product company due to an alleged breach of contract by one of its bonded employees. The employee had been contracted to sell goods on behalf of the fruit product company but allegedly failed to do so properly, resulting in financial loss for the latter. The surety company argued that it should not be held responsible as there were no explicit terms within their bond agreement stating they would cover such losses. However, after reviewing all evidence and arguments presented, the Supreme Court ruled against United Surety Company and found them liable for covering these losses under their bonding agreement with American Fruit Product Company.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United Surety Company v. American Fruit Product Company argued that the majority's decision to hold a surety company liable for damages was incorrect. The dissent contended that the contract between the parties did not explicitly state that such liability would be assumed by the surety company, and therefore it should not be held responsible for any losses incurred by American Fruit Product Company due to non-performance or breach of contract by its principal. Furthermore, they believed this ruling could set a dangerous precedent where sureties are unfairly burdened with liabilities beyond their control or knowledge simply because they provided a bond guaranteeing another party's performance under a contract.