In the case of Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. et al. v. N.O Nelson Manufacturing Co., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hartford, reversing a lower court's decision that had favored Nelson Manufacturing Company. The dispute centered around an insurance policy issued by Hartford to Nelson, which covered losses due to dishonest acts by employees but excluded coverage for any employee after discovery of fraudulent or dishonest conduct on their part. When one of Nelson’s employees was discovered embezzling funds, they fired him and made a claim under their policy with Hartford for the loss incurred prior to his termination; however, it was later found out that he had been involved in previous fraudulent activities before this incident came into light - something not known at the time when making claims from insurer (Hartford). Therefore based on exclusion clause present in contract between them, Supreme Court held that since there were earlier instances where employee engaged in fraud (even though employer wasn't aware), insurance company is not liable for covering those losses as per terms agreed upon.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. et al. v. N.O Nelson Manufacturing Co., argued that the majority's decision to allow a corporation to sue its insurer for losses caused by an employee's dishonesty was incorrect and set a dangerous precedent. The dissenters believed that this ruling effectively allowed corporations to profit from their employees' wrongdoing, which they felt was morally wrong and contrary to public policy. They also expressed concern about the potential for abuse, as corporations could potentially collude with dishonest employees in order to collect insurance payouts. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the insurance contract itself, arguing that it did not actually cover losses caused by employee fraud or dishonesty.