In the case of Life & Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee v. Barefield, 1933, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether an insurance company could be held liable for a policyholder's suicide within two years of purchasing a life insurance policy. The insurer argued that it should not have to pay out on such policies due to a clause excluding liability in cases where death resulted from self-destruction within two years after the date of issue. However, Mrs. Barefield claimed her husband’s death was accidental and sought recovery under his accident policy which did not contain any exception as regards suicide or intentional injury by oneself. The court ruled in favor of Mrs.Barefield stating that if Mr.Barefield had been sane at the time he would not have committed suicide; therefore his act must be considered as one performed while he was insane and thus unintentional or accidental. This ruling established precedent for considering mental state when determining intent in similar future cases involving insurance claims related to suicides.

In the dissenting opinion for Life & Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee v. Barefield, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court's ruling in favor of Mrs. Barefield contradicted established legal principles regarding insurance contracts and their interpretation. The dissent emphasized that an insurance policy is essentially a contract between two parties, and as such, its terms should be interpreted according to common understanding rather than being construed against the insurer when ambiguity arises. In this case, Mr. Barefield had misrepresented his health condition at the time he applied for life insurance; therefore, under normal circumstances, such misrepresentation would render any subsequent claim invalid due to breach of good faith on part of insured party (Mr.Barefield). However, by upholding Mrs.Barefields' claim despite her husband’s misrepresentation during application process,the majority effectively ignored these fundamental principles governing contractual relationships including those involving insurers and insureds.