In the case of Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Glidden Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Glidden, a paint manufacturer, against claims made by Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The insurance company had sought to recover losses it incurred after paying out on policies for fires caused by spontaneous combustion of rags soaked with linseed oil-based paints manufactured by Glidden. The court found that while there was evidence suggesting that such spontaneous combustion could occur under certain conditions, there was insufficient proof to establish that this particular type of paint would necessarily cause such an event without additional contributing factors being present (such as improper storage). Therefore, they concluded that the product could not be deemed inherently dangerous and thus liability couldn't be imposed upon its manufacturer.

In the dissenting opinion for Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Glidden Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held an insurance company liable for damages caused by a defective product it insured, was incorrect. He contended that the insurance policy in question only covered liability arising from accidents and not those resulting from defects inherent in the product itself. Therefore, he believed that holding insurers responsible for such damages would fundamentally alter their role from risk assessors to guarantors of product quality - something they are neither equipped nor intended to be. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how this could potentially impact future business practices and contractual relationships between manufacturers and insurers.