In the case of Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Aetna, allowing insurance companies to seek a declaratory judgment on whether they are liable for claims before an actual claim is filed by policyholders. The court held that such cases were justiciable controversies under Article III of the Constitution and thus could be adjudicated by federal courts. This decision arose from a dispute between Aetna and its policyholder, Mr.Haworth, who claimed he was disabled due to rheumatism and neuritis while AETNA argued these conditions weren't covered under his policy's disability clause.

In the dissenting opinion for AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. HAWORTH et al., Justice Stone argued that the case was not ripe for judicial review as there was no actual controversy present, which is a requirement under Article III of the Constitution. He believed that merely disagreeing on a legal question does not constitute an actual controversy and thus, it should be dismissed by federal courts until such time when real harm or threat can be demonstrated by one party against another. In this particular case, he pointed out that Haworth had made no claim nor did they show any intention to make a claim against Aetna Life Insurance Co., hence there's no justiciable dispute at hand. Therefore, in his view, issuing declaratory judgments in cases like these would mean overstepping judiciary's role into advisory opinions territory which could potentially undermine its authority and independence.