Moulor v. Insurance Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1879. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Moulor, and the defendant, an insurance company. Moulor had taken out a policy with the insurance company, and when he died, his widow attempted to collect the benefits of the policy. The insurance company refused to pay, claiming that the policy had been cancelled prior to Moulor's death. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Moulor's widow, finding that the insurance company had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the policy had been cancelled. The Court held that the insurance company had a duty to provide clear and convincing evidence that the policy had been cancelled, and that the company had failed to do so. The Court also held that the insurance company was liable for the full amount of the policy, plus interest. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Moulor's widow, finding that the insurance company had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the policy had been cancelled. The Court held that the insurance company was liable for the full amount of the policy, plus interest.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Moulor v. Insurance Company, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court decisions and would lead to an unjust result for policyholders. He argued that a contract of insurance should be interpreted according to its plain language, which is what the lower court had done in this case. The majority had instead relied on extrinsic evidence such as custom and usage when interpreting the contract, which Justice Field believed was inappropriate because it could lead to different interpretations depending on who was doing the interpretation. Furthermore, he argued that if courts were allowed to rely on extrinsic evidence when interpreting contracts of insurance then insurers would have too much power over their policyholders since they could use ambiguous language or even change terms after policies had been issued without fear of being held accountable by courts relying solely upon plain meaning interpretations. In conclusion, Justice Field felt strongly that allowing insurers too much leeway in how they interpret their own contracts would be unfair and ultimately detrimental for policyholders seeking justice from them through legal action