In the case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. McGrew in 1902, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an insurance policy claim. The plaintiff, Mrs. McGrew, was denied her late husband's life insurance payout by Mutual Life Insurance Company due to alleged misrepresentation and fraud regarding his health condition at the time of application for coverage. The company claimed that Mr. McGrew had knowingly concealed his poor health status which would have otherwise led to denial or higher premiums if disclosed truthfully. The court sided with Mrs. McGrew stating that there was no evidence proving intentional deceit on part of Mr.McGrew when he applied for life insurance coverage; hence it could not be considered as fraudulent concealment under law.The court also held that even though some questions about his health were answered inaccurately during medical examination process, they did not constitute material misrepresentation since those answers didn't significantly affect risk assessment made by insurer. Therefore,the judgement concluded that Mutual Life Insurance Company should honor its contract and pay out benefits owed to Mrs.McGrew as per terms agreed upon in deceased's policy.This ruling reinforced principle where insurers must prove intent behind any alleged false statements before denying claims based on them.

In the dissenting opinion for Mutual Life Insurance Company v. McGrew, Justice Harlan argued that the insurance company had not been defrauded by McGrew's misrepresentation of his health condition. He believed that it was unreasonable to expect a layperson like McGrew to accurately assess and report on their own medical condition in an insurance application without professional guidance. Furthermore, he pointed out that the insurer did not ask any specific questions about heart disease or provide a physician to examine him before issuing the policy. Therefore, according to Justice Harlan, since there were no deliberate attempts at deception from Mr.McGrew and due diligence wasn't exercised by the company itself while issuing policy; holding Mr.McGrew responsible for fraud seemed unjustified.