Joel P. Williams

Joel's practice focuses on fidelity and surety law, insurance law, construction law and commercial litigation. He has substantial experience assisting insurers and sureties in fidelity and commercial surety bond matters, including claims, disputes and litigation involving commercial crime policies, commercial surety bonds and financial institution bonds. Joel has developed particular experience in coverage claims and litigation involving employee theft, computer fraud, probate bonds and other fiduciary bond claims. He regularly assists clients in matters involving performance and payment bonds, motor vehicle dealer bonds, title agent bonds, and other license and statutory bonds. He has successfully argued cases in state and federal courts at the trial and appellate levels. His professional publications have appeared in law reviews, professional journals and periodicals addressing a broad range of fidelity, surety and insurance law topics.

• Represented performance bond surety in the trial court and on appeal in a case of first impression in Maryland construing the notice conditions of an AIA A312 performance bond. In Wildewood Operating Co., LLC v. WRV Holdings, LLC, 303 A.3d 1273 (Md. App. 2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed summary judgment in favor of the surety in a reported opinion, holding that because the Owner failed to provide timely notice under bond Section 3.2, it did not satisfy a condition precedent in the Bond, and the surety’s liability under the bond was discharged.

• State of Maryland, Consumer Protection Division v. Great American Ins. Co., Nos. 953 and 954 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, July 23, 2014) (unreported opinion). Successfully argued on appeal in a case brought by the Attorney General asserting claims against a series of health club bonds issued by our surety client that the trial court properly excluded billing record reports offered as a measure of damages. Both the trial court, and the appellate court in its 64-page opinion, agreed that the damage evidence was inadmissible under the public records hearsay exception because evidence adduced at trial demonstrated error rates too high for the records to be reliable.

• Thomas v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, 28 A.3d 1138 (D.C. 2011). Obtained a trial court ruling in favor of the surety in a substantial supersedeas bond dispute, and successfully defended the judgment on appeal in a reported opinion published by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Schek v. NGM Insurance Company (In Re. Shek), 397 Br. 752 (D. Md. 2008). Obtained summary judgment in the United States Bankruptcy Court determining that a judgment obtained against a fiduciary bond principal was non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, and on appeal to the United States District Court in a published opinion
• Gray and Associates, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2008 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 23903 (D. Md. 2008). Secured entry of summary judgment in favor of a fidelity insurer on a claim asserted by the court-appointed receiver of a title company. The successful defense centered on application of the policy’s discovery tail