In the case of Hartford Life Annuity Insurance Company v. Unsell, 1891, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hartford Life Annuity Insurance Company. The dispute arose when Mr. Unsell's life insurance policy was terminated due to non-payment of premiums while he was alive but his estate claimed that they were not notified about the termination and therefore sought to collect on it after his death. The court held that an insurer has no obligation to notify a policyholder before terminating their life insurance for non-payment of premium unless such requirement is explicitly stated in the contract or required by state law which wasn't applicable here as per Connecticut laws where this company was based out off. Therefore, even though Mr.Unsell’s estate argued lack of notice from Hartford regarding cancellation due to unpaid premiums made them liable for payment upon his death; however, since there was no contractual or legal obligation on part of insurer (Hartford) to provide such notice prior cancelling coverage due failure in paying premium timely - court dismissed claimant’s appeal thereby ruling favourably towards defendant i.e., Hartford Life Annuity Insurance Co.

In the dissenting opinion for Hartford Life Annuity Insurance Company v. Unsells, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and could potentially disrupt existing business practices. He contended that insurance policies should be considered valid contracts under state law, regardless of whether they were issued in a different state from where the policyholder resides. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that an insurer must have a physical presence or conduct substantial business within a given state to be subject to its jurisdiction. Instead, he believed any company doing business across state lines should expect to comply with each individual states' laws and regulations as part of interstate commerce.