In the Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hill case in 1903, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an insurance policy claim. The plaintiff, Mrs. Hill, was denied her late husband's life insurance payout by Mutual Life Insurance Company due to alleged misrepresentation of his health condition during application for coverage. The company argued that Mr. Hill had failed to disclose existing medical conditions and thus violated terms of contract which nullified the policy upon his death. The court held that if an insurer issues a policy without making inquiries about relevant facts or after receiving ambiguous answers from applicants, it cannot later deny liability based on those undisclosed or ambiguously disclosed facts unless they materially affect risk assessment. Therefore, since there was no evidence proving that Mr.Hill’s undisclosed health conditions were material to assessing insurability risks at time of issuing the policy; nor did he intentionally deceive them with false information; Mrs.Hill was entitled to receive benefits as per her husband's life insurance contract.

In the dissenting opinion for Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hill, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's ruling that a life insurance policy could be invalidated due to misrepresentation of age by the insured party. He argued that if an insurer has accepted payments from a customer without questioning their age at any point during the contract period, they should not be allowed to deny payment on death benefits when it is discovered posthumously that there was an error in reporting age initially. The justice believed this practice was unjust and unfair as it allows insurers to accept premiums under false pretenses and then refuse payout upon discovery of those falsehoods after death - essentially profiting from their own negligence or lack of diligence in verifying information provided by customers.