In the case of Johnson v. New York Life Insurance Company, 1902, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a life insurance policy could be voided due to misrepresentation or fraud on part of the insured. The plaintiff, Mrs. Johnson had taken out an insurance policy on her husband's life from New York Life Insurance Company and upon his death claimed for benefits under this policy. However, it was discovered that Mr.Johnson had misrepresented his health condition at the time of application by not disclosing he suffered from Bright's disease (a chronic kidney ailment). The company refused to pay claiming that they were defrauded into issuing a contract based on false information about Mr.Johnson’s health status which would have otherwise led them to deny coverage or charge higher premiums if disclosed truthfully. The court ruled in favor of New York Life Insurance Company stating that even though there wasn't any intentional deception involved; still non-disclosure constituted as material misrepresentation since it influenced insurer’s decision-making process regarding issuance and pricing of policy thereby making it voidable.

The dissenting opinion in the Johnson v. New York Life Insurance Company case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider key aspects of contract law. The dissent emphasized that a life insurance policy is essentially a contract between two parties and should be treated as such under the law. They contended that when Mr. Johnson lied about his health condition, he breached this contractual agreement, rendering it voidable by the insurer at their discretion - regardless of whether or not these lies were material to risk assessment or directly led to his death. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view on misrepresentation; stating even innocent misrepresentations can invalidate contracts if they relate to significant facts upon which one party relies for entering into an agreement – like health status in life insurance policies.