In the case of Morris & Company et al. v. Skandinavia Insurance Company, 1928, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morris & Co., a meatpacking company that had filed an insurance claim for losses incurred due to a fire at their plant in Chicago. The insurer, Skandinavia Insurance Company, refused to pay out on the grounds that Morris & Co had failed to disclose other existing insurances when applying for coverage - a violation of warranty terms within their policy agreement with Skandinavia. However, upon review by the court it was determined that this non-disclosure did not constitute fraud or misrepresentation as there was no evidence suggesting intentional concealment by Morris and Co., nor any indication they were aware such disclosure was required under their policy's terms and conditions. Furthermore, it was found that even if full disclosure had been made initially; this would not have influenced Skandinavia’s decision to insure them given these additional policies didn't cover risks insured against by them (Skandinavia). Thus ruling held non-disclosure alone wasn’t sufficient reason for denying claims unless accompanied by fraudulent intent or material impact on risk assessment.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Morris & Company et al. v. Skandinavia Insurance Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply maritime law principles, particularly those related to general average contributions. The dissent contended that under these principles, a ship owner is entitled to recover from cargo owners their proportionate share of expenses incurred for common benefit during a voyage when an extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure is voluntarily made. In this case, they believed that the insurance company should be liable for its insured’s contribution towards general average losses resulting from jettisoned cargo due to heavy weather conditions at sea - even though there was no physical damage caused directly by perils of the sea on their insured goods (bacon). They also disagreed with how causation had been interpreted by majority; arguing instead that without perilous weather causing necessity for jettison, there would have been no loss – hence establishing proximate cause between peril and loss.