In the 1958 case Hinkle, Administratrix, et al. v. New England Mutual Insurance Company of Boston, Massachusetts, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide on a dispute over an insurance claim following a fatal car accident. The deceased had been insured by New England Mutual and his wife sought to collect on his policy after he died in a crash while driving intoxicated. However, the insurer denied her claim arguing that their policy contained an exclusion clause for accidents caused by intoxication or narcotics use. Mrs.Hinkle argued this violated public policy as it effectively encouraged drunk driving by removing financial consequences for such behavior from drivers themselves and placing them onto innocent third parties instead (like herself). The court ruled in favor of New England Mutual stating that there is no public policy against allowing insurers to exclude coverage for losses resulting from intentional misconduct like drunk driving.

The dissenting opinion in Hinkle v. New England Mutual Insurance Company of Boston, Massachusetts argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to adequately consider the intent of Congress when it enacted relevant legislation. The dissenters believed that the insurance policy should be interpreted as a contract between two parties, not as an instrument regulated by federal law. They pointed out that state laws governing such contracts were well-established and provided sufficient protection for consumers. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "commerce" under the Commerce Clause, arguing it was too broad and encroached on states' rights to regulate their own economic affairs. In conclusion, they contended that this case did not present a constitutional question but rather one of contractual interpretation best left to state courts.