Bigelow v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract of insurance was valid. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Bigelow, and the defendant, Berkshire Life Insurance Company. Bigelow had purchased a life insurance policy from Berkshire, but the policy was later found to be invalid due to a technicality. Bigelow then sued Berkshire for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract of insurance was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the policy was valid and enforceable because it was supported by consideration, was not against public policy, and was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The Court also held that the policy was not voidable due to a technicality, as the technicality was not material to the contract. The Court's decision in Bigelow v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company established that a contract of insurance is valid and enforceable if it is supported by consideration, is not against public policy, and is not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The Court also held that a contract of insurance is not voidable due to a technicality unless the technicality is material to the contract.

In Bigelow v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between an insurance company and its insured could be enforced in court when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract was valid because of a preexisting duty on behalf of the insurer to pay out benefits upon death or disability, regardless of any consideration given by either party. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts must have some form of consideration in order for them to be enforceable under law. He argued that if parties are allowed to enter into agreements with no exchange whatsoever then there is nothing stopping them from making promises which they cannot keep and thus undermining public confidence in contractual obligations as a whole. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such contracts would give insurers too much power over their customers since they could make demands without having anything at stake themselves.