In Insurance Company v. Brame, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether an insurance company was liable for a fire loss that occurred on a property owned by the insured. The insured had taken out a policy with the insurance company, which provided coverage for losses caused by fire. The insured had failed to pay the premium on the policy, and the insurance company had cancelled the policy. However, the fire occurred before the policy was cancelled. The Supreme Court held that the insurance company was liable for the fire loss. The Court reasoned that the policy was in effect at the time of the fire, and that the insured had not been given notice of the cancellation. Therefore, the insurance company was liable for the loss. The Court also noted that the insured had not been given an opportunity to pay the premium and reinstate the policy. The Court's decision established that an insurance company is liable for a fire loss that occurs before the policy is cancelled, even if the insured has failed to pay the premium. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving insurance policies and fire losses.

In Insurance Company v. Brame, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an insurance company that was incorporated in another state and doing business in the first. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction, as there were no sufficient contacts between the two states for personal jurisdiction to be established. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that due process required some form of contact with the forum state before denying its courts' authority over a foreign corporation. He argued that since corporations are artificial persons created by law and having no physical presence outside their place of incorporation, they must necessarily do business within other states through agents or representatives who can be sued on behalf of them if necessary; thus allowing those states to exercise personal jurisdiction over them even when they lack any physical presence there themselves. Furthermore, he noted how Congress had granted certain powers to all States which allowed them to regulate foreign corporations operating within their borders; therefore making it reasonable for those same States’ courts to assert personal jurisdiction over such companies whenever appropriate circumstances arise.