In Insurance Company v. Wolff, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether an insurance company was liable for a policyholder's death. The policyholder, Mr. Wolff, had taken out a life insurance policy with the insurance company. After his death, his widow attempted to collect the benefits of the policy. The insurance company refused to pay, arguing that the policy was void because Mr. Wolff had failed to disclose a prior medical condition. The Supreme Court held that the insurance company was liable for the policyholder's death. The Court found that the insurance company had not proven that the policyholder had intentionally concealed his medical condition. Furthermore, the Court held that the insurance company had not taken reasonable steps to ascertain the policyholder's medical condition prior to issuing the policy. As a result, the Court held that the insurance company was liable for the policyholder's death and ordered it to pay the widow the benefits of the policy.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Insurance Company v. Wolff, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of the contract between the parties and a violation of established principles of law. He argued that under existing laws, when two parties enter into a contract with each other, they are both bound by its terms and conditions unless there is some ambiguity or mistake in it. In this case, he noted that there was no evidence to suggest any such ambiguity or mistake; therefore, he concluded that both parties were obligated to abide by their contractual agreement as written. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if one party did not fulfill their obligations under the contract then they should be held liable for damages caused by their breach - regardless of whether those damages were foreseeable at the time of entering into said agreement. As such, he believed it would have been more appropriate for Mr Wolff to receive compensation from Insurance Company rather than being denied his claim altogether due to lack of foreseeability on behalf part