In the 1934 case Jennings, Receiver, et al. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., the Supreme Court of the United States addressed a dispute over insurance claims related to a bank failure during the Great Depression. The receiver for an insolvent national bank sought to recover on bonds issued by U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G) that insured against dishonest or fraudulent acts by bank employees leading to loss of property. USF&G denied liability arguing that it was not responsible because certain conditions in its contract had been violated; specifically, they claimed that there were irregularities in how audits were conducted and reported at the failed institution which voided their obligation under bond agreements. The court ruled unanimously in favor of USF&G stating that if any condition precedent is breached - whether it contributes directly to losses or not - insurers can deny coverage as long as such conditions are explicitly stated within contracts and do not violate public policy considerations.

In the dissenting opinion for Jennings v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. He contended that a receiver, who is appointed by a court to manage property involved in litigation, should not be held personally liable for an insurance company’s losses unless there is evidence of fraud or misconduct on their part. In this case, he believed no such evidence existed against Jennings. Furthermore, he pointed out that receivers are typically considered custodians rather than owners of properties they oversee; therefore it would be unjust to hold them accountable as if they were owners themselves. Lastly, Justice Stone criticized the majority's interpretation of the insurance contract at issue in this case - arguing it did not clearly state whether coverage extended to receivership situations like this one.