Insurance Company v. Slaughter was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between an insurance company and a policyholder over the validity of a life insurance policy. The policyholder, Slaughter, had taken out a policy with the insurance company, but the company refused to pay out the policy when Slaughter died. The insurance company argued that the policy was invalid because Slaughter had failed to disclose a prior medical condition when he applied for the policy. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Slaughter, finding that the insurance company had failed to prove that Slaughter had deliberately withheld information about his medical condition. The Court held that the insurance company had the burden of proving that Slaughter had deliberately withheld information, and that the company had failed to meet that burden. The Court also held that the insurance company had failed to prove that Slaughter's medical condition would have affected the company's decision to issue the policy. As a result, the Court ruled that the policy was valid and that the insurance company was obligated to pay out the policy.

In Insurance Company v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract of insurance between an insurer and insured is valid when it contains a clause that requires the insured to pay for any losses caused by their own negligence or misconduct. The majority opinion held that such clauses were invalid because they violated public policy, as they would allow insurers to profit from their customers’ mistakes or wrongdoings. However, in dissent Justice Field argued that these clauses should be upheld as valid contracts under state law and federal common law principles of freedom of contract. He further noted that if parties are allowed to freely enter into contracts without government interference then courts should not interfere with those agreements unless there is some clear violation of public policy involved. Ultimately he concluded that since no such violation existed in this case then the clause at issue should be enforced according to its terms and conditions