Miranda D. Russell

Miranda Russell is an Of Counsel attorney at Williams Kastner and is licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington. Miranda’s practice focuses primarily on insurance coverage disputes; she regularly advises and represents clients in pre-litigation claims and coverage analyses, as well as litigates coverage disputes and insurance bad faith claims. Miranda has advised clients on various lines of coverage, including CGL, EPLI, E&O, D&O, homeowners, commercial property, personal and commercial auto, and marine insurance.

While her primary focus is insurance coverage, Miranda is an experienced civil litigator whose practice has included advising and representing:

• National and regional stores, restaurants, and amusement parks/recreational facilities in cases involving product liability, commercial contract disputes, general premises liability, negligent security, false imprisonment and detention, malicious prosecution, third-party criminal conduct claims, intentional tort claims (including defamation, invasion of privacy, and assault and battery), and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of employees;
• Taxicabs, paratransit vehicles, and motor carriers in liability claims;
• Builders, developers, and contractors in construction defect claims and worksite incidents and injuries; and
• Employers in a wide variety of labor and employment-related litigation both at the EEOC level and in state and federal courts, such as employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and claims based on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and state wage and hour Laws.

Miranda has significant experience handling bench and jury trials, mediations, and arbitrations, and representing clients in matters ranging from property damage to catastrophic loss, while working with clients in every step of the litigation process, on a local, regional, and national level. She also has experience in the state and federal appellate practice area.

She is a prior member of the American Bar Association, the Maryland State Bar Association, and the Defense Research Institute.

Miranda is an active mentor to the associates she works with and is part of the student mentor program at Willamette University College of Law.

“Rising Star” by Super Lawyers in 2023, 2022, & 2021. Rising Stars must be under 40 years of age or in practice for 10 years or less; each candidate is selected by attorney-led research staff and is evaluated on a high degree of peer recognition or professional competence. The “Rising Star” list comprises 2.5% of lawyers in the state of Maryland.

• University of Baltimore School of Law, J.D., 2014
• St. Mary’s College of Maryland, B.A., History, 2010

• “I just received a new matter – what do I do now?”, a CLE on the litigation process and best practices.
• “Coverage Issues and the Tank v. State Farm decision”, a CLE on the basics of insurance coverage and disputes that commonly crop up in insurance defense work.

• Trending Anti-Indemnification Statutes, Spring 2019
• Maryland Law and Ride-Sharing Apps, Fall 2018

• In an unpublished opinion written by Judge Heytens and joined by Chief Judge Diaz and Judge King, decided February 28, 2024 in In the Matter of the Complaint of Under the Bridge Watersports, LLC, v. Tressler, Case No. 23-1312, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Maryland’s conclusion that Under the Bridge had no liability to the claimants and that Under the Bridge was properly awarded attorneys’ fees.
• In a reported opinion by Judge J. Berger, issued December 16, 2020 in Six Flags America, L.P. v. Stephanie Gonzalez-Perdomo, Case No. 1620, September Term 2019, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reversed the Prince George’s County Circuit Court’s judgment and remanded the matter for a new trial on liability. The Court of Special Appeals held that the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the “open and obvious” defense when the issue was clearly raised by the facts adduced in evidence was an abuse of discretion that required a reversal of the judgment and a new trial on liability. The appellate court specifically held that the state’s pattern instructions were insufficient as a matter of law when the defense was generated as an issue of fact and, significantly, directly called for a review of the Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instruction on the duty owed an invitee on the basis of being incomplete and lacking clarity with regard to case precedent setting forth the “open and obvious” defense.