In the case of Maryland Casualty Company v. Jones in 1928, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an insurance policy. The plaintiff, Jones, was injured while working for his employer who had a workers' compensation insurance policy with Maryland Casualty Company. After being denied benefits by the insurer due to alleged non-compliance with certain conditions of the policy by his employer, Jones sued both parties and won at trial court level. On appeal however, it was held that he could not recover from either party as he wasn't privy to their contract (the insurance agreement). The Supreme Court reversed this decision arguing that since workers' compensation laws were enacted for employees’ protection and benefit; they should be construed liberally in favor of employees when determining whether or not they can sue insurers directly under such policies.

In the dissenting opinion for Maryland Casualty Company v. Jones, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a state court to exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state insurance company was inconsistent with due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that merely soliciting business in a state did not constitute sufficient contact or presence within that state to justify its courts' jurisdiction over disputes involving such companies. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of this broad interpretation of jurisdictional reach and warned it could lead to unfair treatment of businesses operating across state lines. In his view, only when a corporation has established significant operations or created substantial connections within a particular state should it be subject to legal proceedings there.