In the 1992 case Keene Corporation v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a company could not sue the federal government for damages related to asbestos-related claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The Keene Corporation had manufactured products containing asbestos and was facing numerous lawsuits from individuals who claimed they were harmed by exposure to these products. The corporation sought indemnification from the U.S. government, arguing that it should share in liability because it had mandated or encouraged use of asbestos during World War II and afterwards. However, Justice Souter delivered an opinion stating that while FTCA does allow certain suits against federal agencies for negligence, this did not extend to third-party indemnity claims like those brought by Keene Corp., as such interpretation would stretch beyond congressional intent when enacting FTCA.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Keene Corporation v. United States argued that the majority's interpretation of "claim" was too broad and inconsistent with its ordinary meaning. The dissenters believed that a claim should be considered as an individual demand for compensation, not a collective one based on multiple occurrences or incidents. They also disagreed with the majority's view that insurance policies are ambiguous and thus must be interpreted against insurers. Instead, they held that any ambiguity should have been resolved by looking at how parties involved understood their agreement when it was made, rather than applying general principles favoring insureds over insurers. Furthermore, they contended that even if there were ambiguities in these contracts, federal common law rules shouldn't automatically resolve them against insurers because this approach undermines predictability and fairness in contractual relationships.