The case of Jose Rivera Soler & Co. v. United Firemen's Insurance Company of Philadelphia in 1936 revolved around an insurance claim dispute following a fire at the plaintiff's warehouse in Puerto Rico. The defendant, United Firemen’s Insurance Company, refused to pay out on the policy held by Jose Rivera Soler & Co., arguing that they had violated conditions within their contract by storing more goods than agreed upon and failing to maintain proper records as required under the terms of their insurance policy. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that these violations were indeed significant enough to void the coverage provided by their policy with United Firemen’s Insurance Company.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Jose Rivera Soler & Co. v. United Firemen's Insurance Company of Philadelphia argued that the majority misinterpreted Puerto Rico's insurance laws and wrongly applied them to this particular case. The dissent believed that, under local law, an insurer could not be held liable for losses caused by a policyholder’s negligence unless such liability was explicitly stated in the insurance contract itself. In this instance, there was no explicit provision within the contract between Jose Rivera Soler & Co., and United Firemen's Insurance Company stating that coverage would extend to damages resulting from negligent acts on part of the insured party (Jose Rivera Soler & Co.). Therefore, according to their interpretation of Puerto Rican law, it should have been concluded that United Firemen's Insurance Company was not responsible for covering these losses.