In the case of Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Tremblay, 1911, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Aetna Life Insurance Company. The dispute arose when Mr. Tremblay's life insurance policy was terminated due to non-payment of premiums while he was alive but his wife claimed she had not been notified about this termination and hence filed a claim after her husband’s death. The court held that it is not necessary for an insurer to notify a beneficiary before terminating a policy due to non-payment by the insured party as long as there are clear terms in the contract stating such conditions for termination exist. Therefore, Mrs.Tremblay's claim on her late husband's life insurance benefits was denied because according to their agreement with Mr.Tremblay, AETNA had rightfully cancelled his policy upon failure of premium payment.

In the dissenting opinion for AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. TREMBLAY, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a ruling in favor of Tremblay contradicted established legal principles regarding insurance contracts. The dissent emphasized that an insurer should have the right to rely on statements made by an applicant when deciding whether or not to issue a policy. In this case, Tremblay had misrepresented his health condition during application which led Aetna Life Insurance Company issuing him a life insurance policy based on false information. The dissenters believed that such misrepresentation voided the contract and thus, Aetna should not be held liable for payment upon Tremblay’s death due to undisclosed illness at time of application.