Insurance Company v. Dunham was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1870. The case involved a dispute between an insurance company and a policyholder over the terms of a life insurance policy. The policyholder, Dunham, had taken out a policy with the insurance company, but the company refused to pay out the policy when Dunham died. The insurance company argued that Dunham had failed to pay the premiums on the policy, and thus the policy was void. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dunham, finding that the insurance company had failed to provide Dunham with proper notice of the premium payments. The Court held that the insurance company had a duty to provide Dunham with reasonable notice of the premium payments, and that the company had failed to do so. The Court also held that the insurance company was liable for the full amount of the policy, as Dunham had not been given proper notice of the premium payments. This ruling established the principle that insurance companies must provide reasonable notice of premium payments in order to be held liable for the full amount of a policy.

In Insurance Company v. Dunham, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a policy of insurance issued by an insurance company in New York could be enforced against a debtor who had moved to California after the policy was issued. The majority opinion held that since the contract was made in New York and did not provide for enforcement outside of that state, it could not be enforced against the debtor in California. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that contracts should generally be enforceable wherever their effects are felt; secondly, he noted that if such contracts were unenforceable then creditors would have no protection when debtors move out of state with their assets. He concluded his dissent by noting that “the right which [the creditor] has acquired under its contract is one which ought to receive full recognition and effect everywhere” and thus urged reversal of the majority opinion so as to protect creditors' rights across states lines.