In the 1920 case of Hartford Life Insurance Company v. Blincoe, Administratrix of Barber, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a life insurance policy could be voided due to misrepresentation or concealment by the insured party. The deceased had taken out a life insurance policy from Hartford and listed his occupation as "farmer," when in reality he was also involved in illegal distilling activities which ultimately led to his death. Upon learning this information after his death, Hartford sought to rescind the contract on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. However, upon review, it was determined that while Mr. Barber did not disclose all aspects of his work during application process for coverage; there were no questions asked about any other occupations or risks associated with them by insurer either. The court ruled against Hartford stating that an insurer cannot avoid liability under a policy unless they can prove that false representations made by applicant were material and fraudulent - meaning they would have influenced decision making process if known at time of issuing coverage. Therefore since there wasn't enough evidence provided proving these conditions met regarding Mr.Barber's undisclosed occupation; judgement went in favor for Mrs.Blincoe (Barber's administratrix) allowing her claim towards late husband’s life insurance benefits valid despite concealed facts about decedent’s lifestyle prior to demise.

In the dissenting opinion for Hartford Life Insurance Company v. Blincoe, it was argued that the insurance company should not be held liable for a policyholder's suicide within two years of purchasing a life insurance policy. The dissenting justices believed that there was no evidence to suggest that the deceased had intended to commit suicide when he purchased his life insurance policy and therefore, they disagreed with the majority ruling which upheld an exclusion clause in the contract denying payment if death resulted from suicide within two years of taking out coverage. They contended this provision unfairly penalized innocent beneficiaries who were unaware of any suicidal intentions by their loved ones at time of purchase. Furthermore, they asserted such clauses could potentially encourage fraudulent claims where insurers might argue suicides were premeditated to avoid paying benefits.