In the 1935 case of Di Giovanni et al. v. Camden Fire Insurance Association, the plaintiffs, owners of a building in Pennsylvania that was insured by the defendant insurance company, sought to recover losses following a fire at their property. The insurance policy contained an arbitration clause which required any disputes over loss amounts to be settled via arbitration rather than litigation. However, when disagreements arose about the amount owed under the policy after a fire damaged their building, Di Giovanni and his co-plaintiffs sued for recovery instead of pursuing arbitration as stipulated in their contract with Camden Fire Insurance Association. The U.S Supreme Court ruled against Di Giovanni and his co-plaintiffs on grounds that they had breached their contractual agreement with Camden Fire Insurance Association by not adhering to its terms requiring dispute resolution through arbitration before resorting to litigation. This decision reinforced legal principles upholding freedom of contract and affirming enforceability of agreed-upon methods for resolving disputes between parties involved in contracts.

In the dissenting opinion for Di Giovanni et al. v. Camden Fire Insurance Association, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret and apply New Jersey law regarding insurance contracts. The dissent contended that under state law, an insurer could not deny coverage based on a policyholder’s misrepresentation unless it was material and made with intent to deceive. In this case, while there had been a misstatement about whether there were other insurance policies covering the same property, this did not necessarily mean that the insured intended to defraud or materially affect the insurer's risk assessment process. Therefore, according to the dissenters' interpretation of New Jersey law, such a non-material misrepresentation should not have resulted in denial of coverage by Camden Fire Insurance Association.