In Insurance Company v. Haven, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an insurance company was liable for a loss caused by a fire that occurred on the insured's property. The insured had purchased a policy from the insurance company that provided coverage for losses caused by fire. The insured argued that the insurance company was liable for the loss because the fire was caused by a defect in the insured's property. The insurance company argued that the policy did not cover losses caused by defects in the insured's property. The Supreme Court held that the insurance company was liable for the loss. The Court reasoned that the policy did not explicitly exclude losses caused by defects in the insured's property, and thus the insurance company was liable for the loss. The Court also noted that the policy was intended to provide coverage for losses caused by fire, and that the insured had paid the premium for the policy in reliance on the insurance company's promise to provide coverage. Therefore, the Court held that the insurance company was liable for the loss.

In Insurance Company v. Haven, 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 had been destroyed by lightning. The majority opinion held that since lightning is a form of fire, and thus covered under the terms of the policy, it should be considered as such in this case. Justice Field dissented on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were no facts presented which showed any connection between lightning and fire; secondly, he contended that if such a connection did exist then it would have been explicitly stated in the contract itself or at least mentioned in some way within its language. He concluded his dissent by stating that while courts may interpret contracts liberally to give effect to their true intent and meaning they cannot add words or conditions not found therein nor can they make new contracts for parties who never agreed upon them.