In the case of Old Wayne Mutual Life Association of Indianapolis v. McDonough in 1906, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a life insurance company could not deny payment on a policy due to suicide if it failed to include an explicit clause excluding such circumstances in its contract. The court held that any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding terms and conditions should be interpreted against the insurer who drafted them. In this particular case, Mr. McDonough had taken out two policies with Old Wayne Mutual Life Association before committing suicide within two years - a period during which many insurers refuse to pay benefits for suicides but was not explicitly stated by Old Wayne's policy contracts. Therefore, his widow was entitled to receive full benefits from both policies as per their agreement.

In the dissenting opinion for Old Wayne Mutual Life Association of Indianapolis v. McDonough, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against an insurance company was incorrect. The dissent pointed out that there were discrepancies in how the plaintiff had presented his case and questioned whether he had truly been misled by the insurance company as claimed. They also took issue with what they saw as a lack of evidence supporting these claims, arguing that this made it impossible to determine if any wrongdoing had actually occurred on part of the insurer. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential implications for future cases involving similar disputes between policyholders and insurers, suggesting such rulings could set a dangerous precedent.