In the case of Ewen v. American Fidelity Company, 1922, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over an insurance policy claim. The plaintiff, Mr. Ewen, had taken out a life insurance policy with American Fidelity Company on his wife's life and named himself as beneficiary. After his wife's death from tuberculosis in 1917, he filed for the benefits but was denied by the company on grounds that there were misrepresentations in her health condition at time of application which would have affected their decision to insure her if they knew about it then. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Ewen stating that while there may have been some inaccuracies regarding Mrs.Ewen’s health status during application process; these did not constitute fraud or intentional deception since she honestly believed herself to be healthy when applying for coverage and thus didn't intentionally deceive them into providing coverage based on false information. Therefore,the insurer could not deny payment because they failed to prove any fraudulent intent or material misrepresentation by Mrs.Ewen at time of application.The ruling emphasized that insurers must show clear evidence of fraud before denying claims based on alleged misrepresentations made during applications.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ewen v. American Fidelity Company argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the insurance policy contract and its terms. The dissent believed that, according to standard principles of contract interpretation, ambiguous language should be construed against the party who drafted it - in this case, the insurance company. Therefore, any doubts about whether or not Mr. Ewen’s disability fell under coverage should have been resolved in his favor rather than denying him benefits outrightly as done by majority ruling. Furthermore, they contended that there were factual issues regarding Mr.Ewen's condition which could only be properly determined through a trial rather than summary judgment granted by lower courts and upheld by Supreme Court majority judgement.