In the case of Aetna Insurance Company v. Hyde in 1927, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an insurance policy claim. The plaintiff, Mr. Hyde, had taken out an accident insurance policy with Aetna Insurance Company which included coverage for loss resulting from accidental injury causing death within ninety days of such injury. After suffering injuries in a car accident and dying more than ninety days later due to complications related to these injuries, his estate filed a claim with AETNA under this policy. AETNA denied the claim arguing that since Mr.Hyde died after ninety days from when he was injured, they were not liable according to their contract terms. However,the court held that if it could be proven that there was no intervening cause between the initial injury and eventual death (i.e., if it could be shown that Mr.Hyde's death resulted directly from his original injuries), then AETNA would indeed be liable despite him dying outside of the specified time period. The ruling emphasized on interpreting contracts based on intent rather than just literal wording; thus setting precedent for future cases dealing with similar issues.

In the dissenting opinion for AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY v. HYDE, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of federal jurisdiction. He contended that a state court should not be allowed to exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant based solely on their contractual relationship with an in-state plaintiff. This, he believed, violated due process rights as it did not provide sufficient grounds for personal jurisdiction. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "doing business" within a state as merely having contracts or policies there; instead arguing this term should only apply when a company has continuous and systematic operations within said state. Lastly, Justice Stone expressed concern about potential negative implications of this ruling on interstate commerce by potentially subjecting companies to litigation in any state they have policyholders.