In the case of Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Company, 1910, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a life insurance policy could be voided due to misrepresentation or concealment by the insured party. The plaintiff, Mrs. Hunter, had taken out an insurance policy on her husband's life from Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Company and upon his death sought to claim benefits under this policy. However, the company refused payment alleging that Mr. Hunter had concealed information about his health condition during application for coverage which would have otherwise led them not to insure him in first place if they knew it earlier. The court ruled in favor of Mrs.Hunter stating that while there were indeed inaccuracies in Mr.Hunter's statements regarding his health at time of application; these did not constitute fraud as he believed them to be true when made and thus didn't intend any deception towards insurer nor did he act maliciously against them. Furthermore,the court held that even if such inaccuracies existed,it was incumbent upon insurer through its agents,to verify accuracy before issuing a policy rather than denying claims later based on those grounds.The decision underscored importance of good faith between parties involved in contracts like insurance policies where one side has more knowledge over subject matter than other.

In the dissenting opinion for Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Kentucky law that prohibited out-of-state insurance companies from removing cases to federal court. He argued that this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated against non-resident corporations by denying them equal protection under state laws. Furthermore, he contended that such discrimination was not justified by any substantial difference between resident and non-resident corporations or any public policy considerations. Thus, in his view, this law should have been struck down as unconstitutional.