In Dickey v. The Baltimore Insurance Company, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute between two parties over an insurance policy issued by the defendant company. The plaintiff had purchased a policy from the defendant to cover his ship and cargo while it was in transit on a voyage from Philadelphia to Jamaica. During this voyage, part of the cargo was lost due to "perils of navigation." The plaintiff sought compensation for his losses under the terms of his insurance policy but was denied coverage by the defendant who argued that they were not liable since there had been no actual physical damage done to either vessel or its contents during transport. In ruling on this case, Chief Justice John Marshall held that even though there had been no direct physical harm caused by perils of navigation, such as storms or pirates attacking ships at sea, these risks still fell within scope of what could be considered covered events under an insurance contract and thus should be compensated accordingly if any losses occurred due to them. As such he found in favor of plaintiff and ordered payment for damages incurred during transit according to terms outlined in their agreement with insurer

In Dickey v. The Baltimore Insurance Company, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have dismissed the case on technical grounds. He argued that it was necessary to consider whether or not there had been an actual breach of contract between the parties and if so, what damages were due as a result. Marshall believed that since both parties agreed to enter into a contract for insurance coverage, they should be held accountable for any losses incurred by either party due to non-performance of their obligations under said agreement. Furthermore, he asserted that even though some technicalities may have prevented this particular case from being heard before the Supreme Court at this time, such issues could still be addressed in future cases with similar facts and circumstances.