In the 1916 case of Chicago Life Insurance Company et al. v. Cherry, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an insurance policy claim following a suicide. The deceased had taken out two life insurance policies from different companies - one from New York Life and another from Chicago Life Insurance Co., both containing clauses stating that if the insured committed suicide within a certain period after taking out the policy, no payout would be made to beneficiaries. After his death by suicide within this specified period, both companies refused to pay out on their respective policies. The court ruled in favor of Cherry's estate against Chicago Life but upheld New York Life’s refusal to pay because each company used different language in their contracts regarding suicides: while New York explicitly excluded payouts for suicides regardless of sanity or insanity at time of death, Chicago only mentioned "sane" suicides as exclusions which led to ambiguity about whether it covered instances where insured was insane during act. This decision highlighted importance of precise wording in contract law and set precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago Life Insurance Company v. Cherry, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of insurance law and contract principles. The dissent disagreed with the majority's view that an insurance policy could be canceled without proper notice to all parties involved, particularly when there were third-party beneficiaries such as creditors who stood to lose from such cancellation. They contended that this violated basic principles of fairness and due process, arguing instead for a stricter reading of contractual obligations which would require insurers to provide adequate notice before canceling policies. This perspective emphasized protection for consumers and third parties over the interests of large corporations like insurance companies.