In Insurance Company v. Seaver, 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 fire was caused by the negligence of the insurance company's agents, and thus the insurance company should be liable for the loss. The Supreme Court held that the insurance company was not liable for the loss because the insured had failed to prove that the fire was caused by the negligence of the insurance company's agents. The Court noted that the insured had failed to provide any evidence that the fire was caused by the negligence of the insurance company's agents, and thus the insurance company was not liable for the loss. The Court also noted that the insured had failed to provide any evidence that the insurance company had acted in bad faith in handling the claim. The Court concluded that the insurance company was not liable for the loss and dismissed the case.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Insurance Company v. Seaver, arguing that the Court should not have reversed the decision of the Circuit Court for Oregon. He argued that under a literal reading of an insurance policy, it was clear that Mrs. Seaver had no right to recover from her husband's life insurance policy after his death because she was not listed as a beneficiary on said policy and thus could not be considered an "insured person" according to its terms. Furthermore, he argued that if there were any ambiguity or uncertainty in interpreting this language then it should be resolved against Mrs. Seaver since she did not draft nor sign the contract and therefore cannot benefit from any ambiguities therein; instead they must fall upon those who drafted them - namely, Mr. Seaver himself and/or his insurer - both of whom are now deceased so their intentions can never truly be known with certainty anyway. In conclusion Justice Field stated: “The court below has decided correctly upon what I consider to be sound principles” and urged reversal of its judgment would only serve to create confusion over how such contracts ought to be interpreted going forward which is why he dissented from majority opinion in this case