Guion v. Liverpool, London, and Globe Insurance Co. was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a policy of insurance was valid. The plaintiff, Guion, had purchased a policy of insurance from the defendant, Liverpool, London, and Globe Insurance Co., which provided coverage for any losses incurred due to fire. However, the policy contained a clause that stated that the policy was void if the insured failed to pay the premium within sixty days of the policy's expiration date. Guion failed to pay the premium within the sixty-day period, and the policy was declared void. Guion then sued the insurance company, arguing that the clause was invalid because it was not in the original policy. The Supreme Court held that the clause was valid and enforceable, and that the insurance company was not liable for any losses incurred by Guion. The Court reasoned that the clause was a valid condition of the policy, and that Guion had agreed to it when he purchased the policy. The Court also noted that the clause was not an unreasonable restriction on the insured's rights, and that it was not contrary to public policy.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Guion v. Liverpool, London, and Globe Insurance Co., arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider a critical factor: whether or not there had been an actual breach of contract between the parties. The plaintiff argued that he had purchased insurance from the defendant for his ship and cargo but when his vessel sank due to a storm, he was denied coverage by the insurer on grounds of fraudulently misrepresenting certain facts about its condition prior to sailing. Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation of events as it ignored evidence presented at trial which showed that no such fraudulent misrepresentation occurred; instead, there were simply errors made in good faith by both sides regarding their understanding of what constituted proper seaworthiness for vessels under maritime law. He concluded that since no intentional deception took place here, then any mistake should be considered minor enough so as not to constitute a breach of contract - thus entitling him to recover damages from the defendant company under existing legal precedent.