In the case of Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Bunn et al., 1931, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an insurance claim following a car accident. The plaintiff, Bunn, was injured in an automobile collision and sought compensation from his insurer, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (Hartford). However, Hartford refused to pay on grounds that Bunn had violated terms of his policy by driving while intoxicated at the time of the accident. The court ruled in favor of Bunn stating that intoxication did not automatically constitute reckless disregard for safety under North Carolina law which governed this contract; thus it could not be used as a reason to deny coverage unless there was evidence showing recklessness or intent to cause harm beyond mere drunkenness. Therefore, despite violating societal norms and potentially criminal laws by drinking and driving, since there were no explicit provisions within his insurance policy excluding coverage under such circumstances nor any proof he acted recklessly or intended harm due to intoxication - other than simply being drunk - he remained entitled to benefits per contractual obligations.

In the dissenting opinion for Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Bunn et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a state court to enforce an insurance policy, which was not in compliance with state law at the time of its issuance, undermined both federal and state authority over interstate commerce regulation. He contended that this ruling would lead to uncertainty and inconsistency in enforcing contracts across different states as it allowed courts to retroactively apply laws on policies issued before such laws were enacted. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential unfairness towards insurers who had no way of predicting future changes in legislation when issuing their policies initially.