In Aschenbrenner v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an insurance policy dispute. The plaintiff, Aschenbrenner, had taken out a fire insurance policy with the defendant company for his property in Wisconsin. A clause in the contract stated that if there was any mortgage or other encumbrance on the property not declared to and accepted by the insurer at time of issuing this policy, it would be voided. When Aschenbrenner's property burned down, he filed a claim but was denied because he had failed to disclose two mortgages on his property when obtaining coverage. Aschenbrenner sued for breach of contract but lost both at trial and appeal level due to non-disclosure of existing mortgages which violated terms of their agreement as per Wisconsin law then. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that while failure to disclose may have been grounds for cancellation during life of policy; once loss occurred without cancellation having been effected priorly by insurer due to non-disclosure - they were liable under terms agreed upon initially.

In the dissenting opinion for Aschenbrenner v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a clause in an insurance contract that limited liability to accidents occurring "while personally operating" a vehicle. He argued that this phrase should be interpreted broadly, rather than narrowly as the majority had done, and should include any activity directly connected with driving such as starting or stopping the car. In his view, Mr. Aschenbrenner was still "personally operating" his truck when he attempted to crank start it and thus should have been covered by his policy when injured during this process. The justice felt strongly that contracts must be read in light of common sense and everyday usage; therefore, if someone is engaged in an act essential to its operation (like cranking), they are indeed 'operating' their vehicle.