In the 1940 case of Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. v. Stevens et al., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether an insurance company could be held liable for damages caused by a drunk driver who had been insured under their policy, despite explicit exclusions in said policy against coverage for such incidents. The court ruled that while it is generally permissible to exclude certain types of risks from an insurance policy, public interest considerations may override these provisions in some cases. In this particular instance, the court found that allowing insurers to disclaim liability for accidents caused by intoxicated drivers would undermine efforts to protect innocent third parties and discourage reckless behavior on roads; therefore, they upheld lower courts' decisions holding Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company responsible for paying damages incurred as a result of their insured's drunken driving accident.

In the dissenting opinion for Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. v. Stevens et al., Justice Roberts argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law imposing liability on an insurance company, even though it had not been notified of a change in vehicle ownership, was unconstitutional. He contended that this violated due process rights by depriving the insurer of its property without fair notice or opportunity to be heard before being held liable for damages caused by someone who is essentially a stranger to them. Furthermore, he asserted that such laws unfairly burden interstate commerce and violate principles of federalism because they force out-of-state insurers to comply with potentially conflicting state regulations regarding notification requirements and liability rules.