Insurance Company v. Weide was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether an insurance company was liable for a loss caused by a fire that was caused by the negligence of a third party. The Court held that the insurance company was not liable for the loss, as the fire was caused by the negligence of a third party and not by the insured. The case arose when the plaintiff, Weide, had taken out an insurance policy with the defendant, an insurance company. Weide's property was destroyed by a fire that was caused by the negligence of a third party. Weide then sought to recover the loss from the insurance company. The insurance company argued that it was not liable for the loss, as the fire was caused by the negligence of a third party and not by the insured. The Supreme Court agreed with the insurance company, holding that the insurance company was not liable for the loss. The Court reasoned that the insurance company had not assumed any responsibility for the negligence of a third party, and thus was not liable for the loss. The Court also noted that the insurance policy did not provide coverage for losses caused by the negligence of a third party. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the insurance company was not liable for the loss caused by the fire, as the fire was caused by the negligence of a third party and not by the insured. The Court also noted that the insurance policy did not provide coverage for losses caused by the negligence of a third party.

In Insurance Company v. Weide, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a policy of insurance issued by an insurance company in New York could be enforced against the insured when he had moved to California after taking out the policy. The majority opinion held that since the contract was made and executed in New York, it should remain valid even if one of its parties moved away from there. However, Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that while contracts are generally binding regardless of where they were formed or executed, this particular case presented unique circumstances which required a different outcome. He reasoned that since both parties knew at the time of contracting that one would eventually move away from New York before any payments were due under the policy, it would be unfair for either party to enforce such an agreement as written without making some provision for relocation expenses or other costs associated with moving across state lines. Therefore, he concluded that although contracts are usually binding no matter what happens afterwards between their parties, exceptions must sometimes be made depending on each individual situation's facts and circumstances.