In the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Liebing case in 1921, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving insurance policy claims. The plaintiff, Mrs. Liebing, was denied her late husband's life insurance payout by the defendant company due to allegations that Mr. Liebing had misrepresented his health condition during application for coverage - specifically regarding alcoholism and associated ailments which led to his death later on. The court held that if an insured person gives false answers in their application with intent to deceive or if these misrepresentations significantly affect risk assessment from an insurer’s perspective, then it is grounds enough for denying benefits upon death of said individual under Missouri law (where this case originated). However, there was no substantial evidence proving such deception or material impact on risk evaluation by Mr.Liebing while applying for life insurance; hence Mrs.Liebing was entitled to receive her claim amount as per terms of policy contract.

In the dissenting opinion for Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Liebing, Justice McReynolds expressed his disagreement with the majority's interpretation of Missouri law and its application to this case. He argued that under Missouri law, a life insurance policy could be assigned without obtaining consent from the insurer unless there was explicit language in the contract prohibiting such an assignment. In this case, he believed that no such prohibition existed and therefore disagreed with voiding Mrs. Liebing’s claim on her late husband’s policy due to lack of consent from Mutual Life Insurance Company before assigning it as collateral for a loan. Furthermore, he contended that even if there had been a requirement for prior approval by the company before making an assignment, any subsequent acceptance or recognition by them would have validated it retroactively.