In the case of Millers' Indemnity Underwriters v. Nellie Boudreaux Braud and Ed. J. Braud, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an insurance claim following a fire at the insured's property in Louisiana. The insurer, Millers' Indemnity Underwriters, argued that it was not liable to pay out on the policy because there had been misrepresentations made by Mr. and Mrs. Braud during their application for coverage - specifically regarding previous fires at their properties which they failed to disclose fully or accurately when asked about them in writing by the insurer before issuing coverage. The court ruled against Millers', finding that under Louisiana law, even if such misrepresentations were made (which was disputed), they would only relieve an insurer from liability if they pertained directly to the cause of loss - i.e., if prior fires had somehow contributed to this one; otherwise, insurers must prove fraud or intentional deception on part of insureds in order for any inaccuracies or omissions in applications to void policies.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Millers' Indemnity Underwriters v. Nellie Boudreaux Braud and Ed. J. Braud argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with Louisiana law, which should have governed because the contract at issue was made there. The dissent pointed out that under Louisiana law, an insurance policy is a personal contract between insurer and insured, not a property right attached to specific goods or premises covered by the policy. Therefore, when Mrs. Braud sold her property but retained her fire insurance policy on it without notifying or obtaining consent from Millers' Indemnity Underwriters (the insurer), she did not violate any terms of the policy nor render it void as per Louisiana law - contrary to what majority held based on general principles of English common law about insurable interest.