In the case of Northbrook National Insurance Company v. Larry W. Brewer et al., 1989, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an insurance company could be held liable for damages caused by a drunk driver who was insured under a policy that specifically excluded coverage for intentional acts. The lower courts had ruled in favor of the victims, finding that while driving drunk is indeed an intentional act, causing an accident as a result is not necessarily so and thus should be covered by insurance. However, upon review, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and sided with Northbrook National Insurance Company. The court found that even though causing harm may not have been intended or expected from the perspective of the intoxicated driver when he got behind wheel; it's nevertheless foreseeable consequence which can't be separated from his deliberate conduct i.e., drinking excessively then choosing to drive despite knowing potential risks involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Northbrook National Insurance Company v. Larry W. Brewer et al., Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent and an unwarranted intrusion into state law matters. He contended that under previous rulings, federal courts were required to apply substantive state law in diversity cases unless there was a compelling federal interest at stake, which he did not believe existed in this case. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Illinois insurance law and believed it should have been left to Illinois courts to decide whether punitive damages could be awarded under their own laws. In his view, by deciding on behalf of Illinois courts without clear guidance from them or any overriding federal concern justifying such intervention, the Court overstepped its bounds and undermined principles of federalism.