In the 1906 case of Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Clark, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an insurance policy claim. The insured party had committed suicide and the insurer refused to pay out on grounds that it was not liable for self-inflicted deaths within one year of taking out a policy, as stated in its contract terms. However, this clause was printed in small type and placed inconspicuously within the document which led to legal contention about whether or not it should be enforceable due to lack of clear communication from insurer's side. The court ruled against Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company stating that such important clauses must be made clearly visible and understandable for policyholders; otherwise they would be considered void due to their deceptive nature under common law principles regarding contracts' interpretation favoring non-drafting parties when ambiguities arise (contra proferentem rule). This decision reinforced consumer protection measures by ensuring transparency in contractual agreements between insurers and insured individuals.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Clark argued that the insurance company should not be held liable for a policyholder's suicide, regardless of whether it was committed while sane or insane. The justice believed that an individual who commits suicide cannot be considered as dying from natural causes and therefore, their beneficiaries should not receive any payout from life insurance policies. He also pointed out that there is no way to accurately determine if someone was sane or insane at the time they took their own life, making such distinctions irrelevant in these cases. Furthermore, he contended that allowing payouts in cases of suicide would create a moral hazard by incentivizing individuals to take their own lives for financial gain.