In the case of Gunther v. Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether an insurance company was liable for damages caused by a fire that was started by a tenant in a building owned by the insured. The tenant had been renting the building from the insured for several years and had been paying the insurance premiums. The Supreme Court held that the insurance company was liable for the damages caused by the fire. The Court reasoned that the insurance company had a duty to protect the insured from any losses caused by the tenant's negligence. The Court also held that the insurance company had a duty to investigate the tenant's background and to ensure that the tenant was a responsible tenant. The Court also held that the insurance company was not liable for any losses caused by the tenant's intentional acts. The Court reasoned that the insurance company had no duty to protect the insured from intentional acts of the tenant. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the insurance company was liable for the damages caused by the fire, but not for any losses caused by the tenant's intentional acts.

In the dissenting opinion of Gunther v. Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company, Justice Douglas argued that the majority’s decision was too narrow in scope. He believed that a broader interpretation of “accident” should be applied to this case, as it would provide more protection for policyholders who are injured due to an unforeseen event or circumstance beyond their control. In his view, if an insured person is hurt because of something outside their control—such as a defective product or dangerous condition on someone else's property—they should still be able to recover damages from their insurance company even if they were not directly involved in causing the accident themselves. Furthermore, he argued that any ambiguity in the language used by insurers when drafting policies should be interpreted liberally so as to protect policyholders from unfair outcomes like those seen here. Ultimately, Justice Douglas concluded that while there may have been some negligence on behalf of Gunther which contributed to her injury, she still deserved compensation under her insurance policy since she had no way of foreseeing what happened before it occurred.