In the case of National Union Fire Insurance Company v. Wanberg, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a fire insurance policy could be voided due to misrepresentation or concealment by the insured party. The court ruled in favor of National Union Fire Insurance Company, stating that any false representation or deliberate concealment made by an individual when applying for insurance is grounds for cancellation of the policy. In this particular case, Mr. Wanberg had failed to disclose other existing policies on his property at the time he applied for coverage with National Union Fire Insurance Company - a fact which would have likely influenced their decision to insure him and under what terms. Therefore, it was determined that Mr.Wanberg's non-disclosure constituted fraud and thus rendered his contract with National Union null and void.

The dissenting opinion in the case of National Union Fire Insurance Company v. Wanberg argued that the majority's decision was not consistent with established legal principles regarding insurance contracts. The dissent believed that an insurer should be able to deny coverage if it can prove a policyholder made false statements or concealed material facts when applying for coverage, even if those misrepresentations were unintentional or did not directly contribute to the loss claimed under the policy. They contended that allowing such behavior would undermine insurers' ability to accurately assess risk and set premiums, which could ultimately destabilize the entire insurance industry. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "materiality," arguing instead for a broader definition that includes any fact an insurer would want to know before deciding whether to issue a policy and at what price.