Fidelity Insurance Company v. Huntington is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the Fidelity Insurance Company and the Huntington family. The Huntington family had taken out a life insurance policy with the Fidelity Insurance Company, and when the insured died, the Huntington family attempted to collect the benefits of the policy. The Fidelity Insurance Company refused to pay the benefits, claiming that the policy was void due to a technicality. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Huntington family. The Court held that the policy was valid and that the Fidelity Insurance Company was obligated to pay the benefits. The Court reasoned that the technicality was not sufficient to void the policy, and that the Fidelity Insurance Company was obligated to pay the benefits as promised. The Court also held that the Fidelity Insurance Company was liable for any damages caused by their refusal to pay the benefits. This case established the principle that insurance companies must honor their contracts and pay the benefits as promised.

In Fidelity Insurance Company v. Huntington, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a policy of insurance taken out by an individual on their own life and payable to themself could be assigned without the consent of the insurer. The majority opinion held that such assignments were not valid unless consented to by the insurer, as they would otherwise violate public policy. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it should be up to individuals to decide how best to manage their property and interests in accordance with state law; if a person is allowed under state law to assign away rights or interests in personal property for any purpose whatsoever then there should be no reason why they cannot do so when it comes to policies of insurance taken out on their own lives. He further argued that while insurers may have certain contractual rights which must be respected, those rights are limited by what is reasonable within each particular case and situation - thus allowing individuals more freedom than what was granted in this ruling.