In the case of Guardian Assurance Company of London v. Quintana, 1912, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether an insurance company could be held liable for a policy it had issued on a ship that later sank. The ship in question was insured by Guardian Assurance Company but when it sank, the owner claimed that he did not receive any compensation from them. He then sued for damages and won at trial court level. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not there were misrepresentations made about the condition of vessel which would void its insurance policy under maritime law. The insurer argued that they should not have to pay because false statements were made regarding seaworthiness and cargo load during negotiations for coverage. However, after reviewing evidence presented at trial including testimonies from experts who inspected vessel prior to voyage as well as correspondence between parties involved in transaction; Justice Holmes writing for majority ruled against insurer stating: "the representations relied upon by defendant (insurer) were substantially true." Therefore upholding lower court's decision awarding damages to plaintiff (ship owner). This ruling set precedent emphasizing importance of truthfulness during contractual agreements especially within context of marine insurance policies.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Guardian Assurance Company of London v. Quintana argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Quintana and against the insurance company, was incorrect. The dissenter believed that there were significant errors made during trial proceedings which should have resulted in a reversal or at least remand for retrial. They contended that evidence presented by Guardian Assurance regarding fraudulent misrepresentation on part of Quintana was improperly excluded from consideration by jury members. This exclusion, they asserted, significantly impacted the outcome as it denied jurors crucial information necessary to make an informed judgment about liability and damages owed. Furthermore, they disagreed with how instructions were given to jurors about assessing credibility and weightage of testimonies provided by witnesses for both parties involved in this dispute over life insurance policy payout after death under suspicious circumstances.