In the 1933 case of Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. et al. v. Delta & Pine Land Co., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a fire insurance policy could be considered an asset in bankruptcy proceedings, even if it had been obtained fraudulently by the bankrupt party. The court ruled that such a policy is indeed an asset and should be included in the estate for distribution among creditors, regardless of how it was acquired. This decision established important precedent regarding what constitutes assets during bankruptcy proceedings and clarified that all property held by a debtor at the time of filing for bankruptcy must be included in their estate, irrespective of its origin or legitimacy.

In the dissenting opinion for Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held an insurance company liable for damages caused by boll weevil infestation, was incorrect. The dissent contended that such liability should not be imposed on insurers as they cannot control or predict natural disasters and pestilence like boll weevils. They believed this would set a dangerous precedent where insurance companies could potentially be held responsible for any number of unforeseen events beyond their control, leading to financial instability in the industry and higher premiums for policyholders. Furthermore, they disagreed with the interpretation of ambiguous terms in favor of insured parties; instead advocating that contracts should be interpreted based on mutual understanding at time of agreement rather than biased towards one party after-the-fact.