In Insurance Company v. McCain, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether an insurance company was liable for damages 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 damages caused by the fire, while the insurance company argued that the policy did not cover the damages. The Supreme Court held that the insurance company was liable for the damages caused by the fire. The Court reasoned that the policy provided coverage for losses caused by fire, and that the insured had paid the premiums for the policy. Therefore, the Court concluded that the insurance company was liable for the damages caused by the fire. The Court also held that the insurance company was not liable for any consequential damages caused by the fire. The Court reasoned that the policy did not provide coverage for consequential damages, and that the insured had not paid any additional premiums for such coverage. Therefore, the Court concluded that the insurance company was not liable for any consequential damages caused by the fire.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Insurance Company v. McCain, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that under Mississippi law, a contract of insurance is not considered to be an executory contract until it has been fully executed by both parties; thus, he concluded that since no premium had yet been paid on this policy at the time of its cancellation by either party, there could have been no breach of any contractual obligation. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there had already been some payment made towards the premium prior to its cancellation - which he did not believe was true - then such payments would only constitute part performance and therefore still would not amount to a breach of any contractual obligations between the two parties. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since neither party had breached their respective duties or obligations under this policy before it was cancelled by one side or another – regardless as to whether they were obligated to do so – then neither party should bear responsibility for any damages resulting from said cancellation.