In Insurance Company v. Rodel, the Supreme Court of the United States 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 full. Therefore, the Court concluded that the insurance company was liable for the loss.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Insurance Company v. Rodel, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a contract must be interpreted according to its plain language and not by any extrinsic evidence or considerations outside of what is written in it. In this case, he noted that there was no ambiguity in the policy at issue; it clearly stated that if two persons were insured on one policy then both had equal rights to recover from a loss regardless of who paid for it. The majority's decision ignored this clear language and instead relied on extrinsic evidence which contradicted what was actually written into the contract itself. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that such an interpretation would lead to injustice because insurance companies could use ambiguous wording as an excuse for denying claims even when they are validly made under a policy’s terms.