Hosford v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Hosford, and the defendant, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, over a fire insurance policy. Hosford had purchased a policy from Hartford Fire Insurance Company that provided coverage for his property in the event of a fire. When a fire occurred, Hosford submitted a claim to Hartford Fire Insurance Company for the damages. However, Hartford Fire Insurance Company denied the claim, arguing that the policy did not cover the damages. Hosford then filed a lawsuit against Hartford Fire Insurance Company, arguing that the policy should have covered the damages. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Hosford, ruling that the policy did indeed cover the damages. The Court held that the language of the policy was clear and unambiguous, and that the policy should be interpreted in favor of the insured. The Court also held that Hartford Fire Insurance Company had a duty to act in good faith and to provide coverage for the damages. As a result, the Court ordered Hartford Fire Insurance Company to pay the damages to Hosford.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hosford v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, arguing that the majority's interpretation of a fire insurance policy was too narrow and failed to consider other relevant factors. He argued that while it is true that an insured must prove their loss by clear and satisfactory evidence, this does not mean they are required to provide proof beyond all doubt or dispute; rather, they should be able to demonstrate with reasonable certainty what has been lost as a result of the incident covered by the policy. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that when interpreting contracts such as insurance policies, courts should look at all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding them in order to determine whether there has been a breach of contract on either side. In this case he felt there were sufficient facts presented which demonstrated both parties had acted in good faith throughout negotiations leading up to signing the agreement; thus any ambiguity should have been resolved against Hartford Fire Insurance Company given its role as insurer underwriting risk for profit.