In the case of Liverpool & London Insurance Company v. Gunther, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a policy of insurance issued by the Liverpool & London Insurance Company was valid and enforceable. The policy was issued to a Mr. Gunther, who had purchased a shipment of goods from a foreign country. The goods were damaged during the voyage, and Mr. Gunther sought to recover the cost of the goods from the insurance company. The Supreme Court held that the policy was valid and enforceable, and that Mr. Gunther was entitled to recover the cost of the goods from the insurance company. The Court noted that the policy was issued in accordance with the terms of the contract, and that the insurance company had not acted in bad faith in issuing the policy. The Court also noted that the policy was issued in accordance with the laws of the foreign country from which the goods were purchased, and that the insurance company had not acted in a manner that was contrary to the laws of the foreign country. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the policy of insurance issued by the Liverpool & London Insurance Company was valid and enforceable, and that Mr. Gunther was entitled to recover the cost of the goods from the insurance company.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Liverpool & London Insurance Company v. Gunther, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under New York law, a contract of insurance is not revocable by either party after it has been accepted and payment made for premiums due on it. The policy at issue had already been accepted by both parties when Gunther attempted to revoke it; therefore, he could not do so without breaching his contractual obligations to the insurer. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were some ambiguity as to whether or not an insured can revoke a policy once accepted and paid for, such ambiguities are generally resolved against insurers who draft policies with unclear language regarding revocation rights. Thus, he concluded that since Gunther had no right to unilaterally revoke the policy at issue here after acceptance and payment of premiums due on it according to New York law governing contracts of insurance, summary judgment should have been entered in favor of Liverpool & London Insurance Company instead of being denied as done by the majority opinion.