Hamilton v. Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company was a Supreme Court of Canada case that dealt with the issue of whether an insurance company was liable for damages caused by a fire that was started by an employee of the insured. The case arose when the insured, Hamilton, had a fire at his business premises that was caused by an employee of the insured. The employee had been smoking in the office and had left a cigarette burning in a wastepaper basket. The fire caused extensive damage to the premises and Hamilton sought to recover the cost of the damage from the insurance company. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insurance company was liable for the damage caused by the fire. The Court held that the insurance company had a duty to indemnify the insured for any loss or damage caused by the negligence of its employees. The Court also held that the insurance company was liable for the damage caused by the fire even though the employee had acted negligently. The Court held that the insurance company was liable for the damage caused by the fire because it had a duty to indemnify the insured for any loss or damage caused by the negligence of its employees. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Hamilton v. Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company established that an insurance company is liable for damages caused by a fire that was started by an employee of the insured. The Court held that the insurance company had a duty to indemnify the insured for any loss or damage caused by the negligence of its employees. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in Canadian insurance law.

In the case of Hamilton v. Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company, Justice Holmes wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was incorrect. He believed that the insurance company had not breached its contract with Mr. Hamilton by refusing to pay him for his losses due to an explosion on his property because there was no evidence of negligence or fault on their part. Furthermore, he argued that even if they were found liable for damages it should be limited to those caused directly by their actions rather than any consequential losses suffered as a result of them failing to fulfill their contractual obligations. In conclusion, Justice Holmes felt strongly that the majority's ruling went against established legal precedent and would set a dangerous precedent going forward if allowed to stand without revision or clarification from higher courts.