In the case of Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Warren in 1900, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an insurance policy claim. The plaintiff, Mrs. Warren, had taken out a life insurance policy with Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company on her husband's life and was named as the beneficiary upon his death. However, when he died from suicide within two years of taking out the policy - during which time suicides were not covered by their policies - Hancock refused to pay out claiming that Mr.Warren had committed fraud by failing to disclose his previous suicidal tendencies at the time of application for coverage. The court held that unless it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr.Warren intended to commit suicide at the exact moment he took out his life insurance policy (which would constitute fraud), then Mrs.Warren was entitled to receive payment under its terms regardless of whether or not her husband’s subsequent self-destruction fell within two-year exclusion period stipulated in their contract.

In the dissenting opinion for Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Warren, the justice argued that there was no legal basis to deny the plaintiff's claim on their life insurance policy due to suicide. The justice contended that while it is true that many policies contain a clause excluding liability in case of suicide, this particular policy did not have such an exclusion. Therefore, according to contract law principles and precedent cases where courts had ruled in favor of plaintiffs when there were no explicit exclusions mentioned in contracts or policies, he believed that the court should rule in favor of Mr. Warren’s estate as well. He also pointed out inconsistencies within majority's interpretation and application of state laws regarding insurance claims involving suicides.