Insurance Company v. Comstock was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1872. The case involved a dispute between an insurance company and a policyholder over the validity of a policy. The insurance company had issued a policy to the policyholder, but the policyholder had failed to pay the premiums. The insurance company then sought to have the policy declared void. The Supreme Court held that the policy was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the policyholder had not acted in bad faith by failing to pay the premiums, and that the insurance company had not taken any action to void the policy. The Court also held that the policyholder had a reasonable expectation of coverage, and that the insurance company had not acted in bad faith by failing to provide coverage. The Court's decision in Insurance Company v. Comstock established that insurance companies must act in good faith when dealing with policyholders, and that policyholders have a reasonable expectation of coverage. The decision also established that insurance companies cannot unilaterally void policies without taking action to do so.

In Insurance Company v. Comstock, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a policy of insurance issued by an insurance company to cover losses from fire applied when the insured property was destroyed due to a riot. The majority opinion held that it did not apply because riots are considered acts of public enemies and thus outside the scope of coverage provided in the policy. However, Justice Miller dissented on this point and argued that while riots may be considered acts of public enemies, they should also be seen as accidental fires for which coverage is provided under most policies. He further noted that if insurers intended to exclude such events from their policies then they should have explicitly stated so in order for customers to understand what is covered and what is excluded. As such, he concluded that since there was no explicit exclusion in this case then it must be assumed that losses caused by riots were included within its terms and conditions and therefore eligible for compensation under the policy at issue here.