In the case of LaNasa Fruit Steamship & Importing Co. v. Universal Insurance Co., 1937, the Supreme Court examined a dispute over an insurance claim for damaged fruit shipments. The plaintiff, LaNasa Fruit Steamship & Importing Company had taken out an insurance policy with Universal Insurance Company to cover potential losses on its banana shipments from Central America to New Orleans due to decay or change in temperature during transit. When several of these shipments arrived spoiled and unsellable, LaNasa filed claims with Universal under their policy agreement but were denied coverage on grounds that the damage was not caused by "external" factors as stipulated in the contract terms but rather due to inherent vice (natural decay) of bananas which is excluded from coverage under such policies. The court ruled in favor of Universal Insurance stating that while it's true that changes in temperature can accelerate spoilage process, this doesn't necessarily mean they are external causes because they don’t originate outside goods themselves; instead being part and parcel of shipping perishables like bananas long distances without refrigeration - thus falling within exclusion clause for inherent vice.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Lanasa Fruit Steamship & Importing Co. v. Universal Insurance Co., argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of insurance law and contract interpretation. The dissent contended that an insurer should not be held liable for losses resulting from a risk it did not agree to cover, especially when there is no ambiguity in the policy language regarding such coverage. In this case, according to the dissent, Universal Insurance Company had clearly excluded war risks from its policy issued to Lanasa Fruit Steamship & Importing Company; therefore, it should not have been held responsible for damages caused by a bomb during a civil war in Spain - an eventuality which falls under 'war risks'. The minority justices believed that if courts could arbitrarily extend coverage beyond what was explicitly agreed upon between parties, then insurers would face unpredictable liabilities leading potentially towards insolvency or exorbitant premiums.