In Orient Insurance Company v. Adams, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract of insurance was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Orient Insurance Company, had issued a policy of insurance to the defendant, Adams, covering the loss of a shipment of goods. Adams had made a claim for the loss of the goods, but Orient Insurance Company refused to pay, arguing that the policy was void because it had been issued without consideration. The Supreme Court held that the policy was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the policy was supported by consideration, as Adams had paid a premium for the policy and had assumed the risk of loss. The Court also noted that the policy was not void for lack of consideration, as the parties had entered into the contract in good faith and with the intention of creating a binding agreement. The Court concluded that the policy was valid and enforceable, and that Orient Insurance Company was liable to Adams for the loss of the goods. The Court held that the policy was supported by consideration, and that the parties had entered into the contract in good faith and with the intention of creating a binding agreement.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Orient Insurance Company v. Adams, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract of insurance is not an ordinary contract between two parties, but rather one which involves public interests as well as private ones. As such, he believed it should be subject to certain rules and regulations established by law for its protection. Furthermore, he asserted that when a policyholder pays premiums on time and complies with all other conditions of his or her policy agreement, then they are entitled to receive benefits from their insurer without any further proof being required from them regarding their claims or losses incurred due to covered events under the terms of the policy agreement. Finally, Justice Field concluded by stating that if insurers were allowed to deny coverage based upon technicalities or minor errors made by insureds during claim submission processes then this would lead to great injustice against those who have faithfully complied with all contractual obligations set forth in their policies agreements yet still find themselves denied coverage unfairly due to small mistakes made while submitting claims for payment after suffering loss due to covered events outlined within said contracts.