In the case of Jeremiah Carpenter v. The Providence Washington Insurance Company, Carpenter had taken out an insurance policy with the company to cover his property in case of fire damage. When a fire did occur and damaged his property, he filed a claim for compensation from the company but was denied due to what they deemed as an exclusionary clause in their contract that stated any damages caused by “the act of God” were not covered under their policy. In response, Carpenter argued that this clause should be interpreted more broadly than just natural disasters and include other events such as riots or civil commotions which could also be considered acts of God according to biblical scripture. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against him stating that while it is true these events can sometimes be attributed to divine intervention, they are still man-made occurrences and thus do not fall within the scope of coverage provided by the insurance policy at hand.

In the case of Jeremiah Carpenter v. The Providence Washington Insurance Company, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted by courts. The majority opinion had held that an insurance policy was void because it did not explicitly state what would happen if one party failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. However, in this case, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on the basis that contracts are binding agreements and should be upheld according to their terms regardless of any ambiguity or lack thereof in its language. He further argued that when a contract is silent about certain matters, those matters must still be determined by mutual consent between both parties involved rather than through judicial interpretation or construction of its meaning. Ultimately, he concluded that since there was no evidence presented which showed either party intended for something other than what was stated in writing within the policy itself then it should remain valid and enforceable as written without any additional court interference or interpretation needed beyond simply enforcing its original terms as agreed upon by both sides at time of signing