The Northern Assurance Company v. Grand View Building Association case in 1901 revolved around a dispute over an insurance policy claim following a fire at the insured property. The Grand View Building Association had taken out multiple policies with different insurers, including one with the Northern Assurance Company. After suffering significant damage due to a fire, they sought compensation from all their insurers but were denied by Northern Assurance on the grounds that their policy contained a clause stating it would be void if there was any other insurance on the property not mentioned in their contract. The Supreme Court ruled against this argument made by Northern Assurance as it found that such clauses only apply when undisclosed policies are present at the time of entering into contracts and do not include those obtained later unless specifically stated otherwise within said contract.

In the dissenting opinion for Northern Assurance Company v. Grand View Building Association, it was argued that the insurance company should not be held liable for damages caused by a fire because of an existing clause in their contract. The clause stated that if there were any changes to the property or its use without notifying and getting consent from the insurer, then all claims would become void. In this case, part of the insured building had been leased out as a saloon which was against local ordinances and thus constituted a change in use. This fact wasn't disclosed to Northern Assurance Company before they issued their policy on said building. Therefore, according to this view, since there was no mutual agreement about such usage between both parties at inception of coverage; henceforth making it impossible for them to have contemplated risks associated with such activity during underwriting process - consequently leading towards nullification of claim post-fire incident due to violation of contractual terms agreed upon initially.