Allis v. Insurance Company was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether an insurance company was liable for damages caused by a fire that was started by a third party. The plaintiff, Allis, had purchased a policy from the defendant insurance company that provided coverage for losses caused by fire. Allis's property was damaged by a fire that was started by a third party, and Allis sought to recover damages from the insurance company. The Supreme Court held that the insurance company was liable for the damages caused by the fire. The Court reasoned that the policy provided coverage for losses caused by fire, and the fire was the proximate cause of the damages. The Court also noted that the policy did not contain any language that excluded coverage for losses caused by a third party. Therefore, the Court concluded that the insurance company was liable for the damages caused by the fire.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Allis v. Insurance Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a contract must be interpreted according to its plain language and not by what one party may have intended or expected when they entered into it. In this case, he argued that there was no ambiguity in the policy language which provided coverage for losses caused by fire only if such loss occurred within sixty days after issuance of the policy; thus, since more than sixty days had passed between issuance and occurrence of damage from fire at issue here, there could be no recovery on this claim. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if some ambiguity existed as to whether or not coverage applied here due to other provisions contained within the policy itself (such as those relating to "continuous" insurance), these ambiguities should still be resolved against finding liability on behalf of insurer because it drafted them into their own agreement with insureds. Ultimately then Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting how unfair it would be for insurers who draft contracts carefully so as avoid any potential liabilities were now being held liable despite clear terms set forth in their policies - something he felt should never occur given existing legal principles governing interpretation of contracts like these ones at issue here today