The Gulf Refining Company v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company case in 1928 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of an insurance policy. The Gulf Refining Company had insured its oil tankers with the Atlantic Mutual Insurance company, and one of these vessels was damaged during World War I by a German submarine attack. The insurance policy covered "all risks" but excluded losses due to war or capture at sea unless explicitly stated otherwise in writing on the policy itself. However, there was ambiguity as to whether this exclusion applied only to total loss or also partial damage caused by such events. The Supreme Court ruled that since it wasn't clearly specified that partial damages were included in the exclusion clause, they should be considered part of "all risks" covered under general terms of the contract. Therefore, Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., who argued against paying for repairs because they believed war-related damages were not covered under their agreement, was held liable for repairing costs incurred by Gulf Refining Co.

In the dissenting opinion for Gulf Refining Company v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of maritime law and insurance contract interpretation. He contended that a shipper should not be held liable for damages caused by an inherent vice in goods unless it is explicitly stated in their insurance policy. In this case, he believed that the damage to the oil cargo was due to its own nature or condition rather than any external cause; therefore, it should have been considered as an "inherent vice," which is typically excluded from coverage under marine policies unless specifically included. The justice also disagreed with the majority's view on causation and maintained that there must be a direct causal connection between perils insured against and loss incurred for recovery under a marine policy.