In the case of Crider v. Zurich Insurance Co., 1964, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether an insurance company could be held liable for damages caused by a third party who had been driving a car insured by them without permission from the owner. The plaintiff, Crider, had suffered injuries in a collision with another vehicle driven by one Mr. Smith who did not have permission from its owner to drive it at that time but was covered under Zurich's policy as an occasional driver. The court ruled in favor of Zurich Insurance Company stating that since Smith did not have explicit consent from the car’s owner to use it when he collided with Crider's vehicle, he wasn't considered an insured person under their policy and hence they were not obligated to pay any damages resulting from his actions.

In the dissenting opinion for Crider v. Zurich Insurance Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Zurich Insurance Co., failed to adequately consider key aspects of contract law and insurance policy interpretation. The dissenting justices believed that ambiguity existed within the insurance policy language, specifically regarding what constituted an "accident." They contended this ambiguity should be interpreted in favor of the insured party (Crider), as is customary in cases where contractual terms are unclear or open to multiple interpretations. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on proximate cause and its application in this case. In their perspective, there was sufficient evidence suggesting that Mr.Crider’s actions were unintentional thus constituting an accident covered by his liability policy with Zurich Insurance Company.