In the case of Aetna Life Insurance Company et al. v. Dunken, Administratrix of Dunken (1924), the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an insurance policy claim following the death of Mr. Dunken in a car accident while he was intoxicated. The insurer, Aetna Life Insurance Company, refused to pay out on his life insurance policy due to a clause excluding coverage if death resulted from illegal activities - arguing that driving under influence was indeed unlawful and thus exempted them from payment obligations. Mrs. Dunken sued for recovery based on her husband's accidental death benefit provision in his life insurance contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs.Dunken stating that although drunkenness might have contributed to Mr.Dunken’s fatal accident, it did not constitute as committing an illegal act per se at the time since there were no specific laws against drunk driving when this incident occurred; hence it could not be used as grounds for denying payout by AETNA under its exclusionary clause related to "illegal acts". This ruling set precedence emphasizing insurers' obligation towards honoring their contractual commitments unless exclusions are explicitly defined and applicable within prevailing legal context.

In the dissenting opinion of AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. DUNKEN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF DUNKEN, 1924 case, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring out-of-state insurance companies to pay death benefits directly to beneficiaries rather than estate administrators interfered with interstate commerce and violated constitutional principles. The dissenting justices contended that this ruling allowed states too much power in regulating business practices of national corporations operating within their borders. They believed such decisions should be left up to federal legislation for uniformity across all states and prevent potential discrimination against non-resident businesses by individual states' laws. Furthermore, they expressed concern over the implications this could have on future cases involving similar issues between state and federal jurisdiction.