The U.S. Supreme Court case Hartford Life Insurance Company v. Johnson in 1918 revolved around the issue of whether an insurance company could be held liable for a policy that was issued under fraudulent circumstances, specifically when the insured person had misrepresented their health condition during application. The court ruled in favor of Hartford Life Insurance Company, stating that if there is evidence to prove misrepresentation or fraud on part of the insured individual at the time of entering into contract with insurer, then it would render such contracts voidable by law and hence relieve insurers from any liability arising out thereof. This ruling set a precedent for future cases involving similar issues and reinforced insurers' rights to deny claims based on false information provided by applicants.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hartford Life Insurance Company v. Johnson argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and could potentially undermine contractual obligations. The justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Alabama law, arguing that it did not require insurance companies to pay out policies if they were obtained through fraudulent means. He also took issue with how the court handled evidence related to whether or not fraud had occurred, believing there was enough proof for a jury to decide on this matter rather than having it dismissed outright by judges. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where courts can interfere in private contracts based on their own interpretations rather than sticking strictly to what is written within them.