In the 1943 case of Crites, Incorporated v. Prudential Insurance Co., et al., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an insurance policy claim. The plaintiff, Crites Inc., had taken out a fire insurance policy on its property from Prudential Insurance Company and filed a claim after suffering losses due to fire damage. However, Prudential denied the claim based on misrepresentations made by Crites in obtaining the policy - specifically that they failed to disclose other existing policies covering their property. The court ruled in favor of Prudential stating that if there were any material misrepresentation or concealment related to risk factors involved at the time of issuing an insurance contract, it would render such contracts voidable at insurer's discretion even if these weren't connected directly with loss occurrence for which claims are made later.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Crites, Incorporated v. Prudential Insurance Co. et al., 1943, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court's ruling against Crites was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant state law regarding insurance contracts. The dissent maintained that under Ohio law (where the contract was made), an insurer is obligated to defend its insured party even if claims brought against them are groundless or fraudulent - unless there is clear language in the policy stating otherwise. In this case, they believed such explicit exclusionary language did not exist within Crites' policy with Prudential Insurance Company; therefore, Prudential should have defended Crites when sued by third parties for alleged violations of antitrust laws. They also disagreed with how certain terms were defined and applied by both courts which led to their conclusion that no duty existed on part of Prudential towards defending these suits.