In the case of Aetna Insurance Co. v. United Fruit Co., 1937, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of United Fruit Company, affirming a lower court's decision that an insurance company could not deny coverage based on a technicality. The dispute arose when one of United Fruit’s ships was damaged and they filed for insurance compensation from Aetna Insurance Company. However, Aetna denied their claim stating that the ship had deviated from its planned course which violated terms within their policy agreement with United Fruit. The Supreme Court held that deviation must be substantial to void an insurance contract under federal maritime law and found no such substantial deviation in this case; hence it did not constitute grounds for denial by Aetna Insurance Company.

In the dissenting opinion for AETNA INSURANCE CO. v. UNITED FRUIT CO., Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to hold an insurance company liable for damages caused by a ship captain's negligent navigation, even though such negligence was excluded from coverage in the policy. He argued that this interpretation of maritime law contradicted established legal principles and unfairly penalized insurers who had no control over a ship captain's actions once at sea. Furthermore, he contended that it would lead to increased premiums and potentially discourage companies from offering marine insurance altogether, which could have serious implications for international trade and commerce. In his view, if there were concerns about captains acting negligently or recklessly without fear of financial consequences due to their employer’s insurance coverage, these should be addressed through stricter regulations or penalties on shipping companies rather than shifting liability onto insurers.