In Insurance Company v. Gossler, 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 received notice of the cancellation of the policy. 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.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Insurance Company v. Gossler, arguing that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not subject to judicial interpretation or alteration. He argued that when an insurance policy is issued by an insurer, it creates a binding agreement between the insured and insurer which cannot be changed without mutual consent of both parties. In this case, he disagreed with the majority's ruling that allowed for reformation of a fire insurance policy based on alleged mistake in its drafting due to misunderstanding between the parties. Justice Field believed such action was inappropriate because it would allow courts to alter contracts after they had been executed without any proof of fraud or misrepresentation by either party involved in creating them. Furthermore, he noted that allowing courts to reform contracts could lead to uncertainty regarding their enforceability since there would no longer be assurance about what terms were actually agreed upon at time of execution if those terms could later be altered judicially.