Insurance Company v. Huchbergers was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between an insurance company and the Huchbergers, a family who had taken out a life insurance policy on the life of their son. The insurance company refused to pay the policy benefits when the son died, claiming that the policy had been obtained through fraud. The Huchbergers argued that the insurance company had failed to prove that the policy was obtained through fraud and that they were entitled to the policy benefits. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Huchbergers, finding that the insurance company had failed to prove that the policy was obtained through fraud. The Court held that the insurance company had the burden of proving that the policy was obtained through fraud and that the Huchbergers were entitled to the policy benefits. The Court also held that the insurance company was liable for the costs of the litigation. This case established the principle that an insurance company must prove that a policy was obtained through fraud in order to deny benefits.

In Insurance Company v. Huchbergers, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an insurance company could be held liable for damages caused by a fire that had been set intentionally by one of its insureds. The majority opinion found in favor of the insurance company and held that they were not responsible for any losses incurred due to arson committed by their policyholder. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that it would be unjust to allow the insurer to escape liability when they had accepted premiums from their customer with knowledge of his criminal intent. He further noted that if insurers are allowed to avoid responsibility in such cases then there will be no incentive for them to properly investigate potential customers or take steps necessary to prevent fraud or other illegal activities on behalf of those who purchase policies from them. Ultimately, he concluded that allowing insurers off the hook in these situations would lead only serve as encouragement for future wrongdoing and should therefore not be permitted under law.