In the 1958 case of Dick v. New York Life Insurance Co., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an insurance policy payout. The plaintiff, Mrs. Dick, was seeking to collect on her late husband's life insurance policy from New York Life Insurance Company after he committed suicide within two years of purchasing it. The company refused to pay out due to a clause in the contract that stated no payment would be made if death occurred by suicide within two years of obtaining coverage. The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Dick stating that while such clauses are generally enforceable under law, they must also be clear and unambiguous so as not to mislead or confuse policyholders about their rights and obligations under the contract terms. The court found ambiguity in this particular clause because it did not clearly specify whether "suicide" meant any act leading directly or indirectly to self-destruction regardless of mental state at time (as argued by insurer), or only those acts where insured intended his own death (as argued by widow). Given this uncertainty, court applied rule requiring ambiguous provisions be interpreted against party who drafted them - here insurer - thus siding with widow.

In the dissenting opinion for Dick v. New York Life Insurance Co., Justice Whittaker disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that denied an insurance claim on grounds of suicide. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to conclusively determine whether or not the insured had committed suicide, and thus, it was inappropriate for courts to make such determinations based solely on circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, he contended that even if it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the insured had taken his own life, this should not automatically disqualify beneficiaries from receiving payouts unless it can also be demonstrated they were aware of and complicit in plans for self-destruction at time of policy purchase. In essence, Justice Whittaker believed insurers should bear burden of proof when denying claims under these circumstances rather than placing undue hardship on grieving families seeking financial relief after tragic loss.