In the case of Williams v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 1914, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a surety company could be held liable for damages caused by an individual who had been released on bail bond provided by that company. The plaintiff, Williams, argued that since the defendant (the surety company) had guaranteed the appearance of a criminal defendant in court through their bail bond service and this person subsequently committed further crimes while out on bail, they should bear some responsibility for those actions. However, after considering both state law and common law principles regarding liability of sureties or guarantors in such situations as well as examining precedents from other jurisdictions which have considered similar issues before them; it was ruled by Justice Holmes that there is no legal basis to hold a bonding company responsible for any subsequent criminal acts committed by someone they've bonded out. He stated: "The obligation of these defendants ended when they produced their principal [i.e., the person bailed out] at court according to their contract." Therefore, he concluded that even if one were morally outraged at what happened here - legally speaking - there's simply no cause of action against these defendants under existing laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Williams v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the contract between Williams and USF&G. He argued that there was no ambiguity in the language of the contract, which clearly stated that it would only cover losses due to theft by employees who were listed on a schedule attached to it. Since Williams had not included any names on this schedule, he believed that she should not be able to recover any damages from USF&G under its terms. Furthermore, he contended that even if there was some uncertainty about what kind of loss would be covered by this policy, it should have been resolved in favor of USF&G because they were merely following their usual business practices when they issued it without requiring her to list specific employees.