In the case of Petrowski et al. v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co., 1955, the Supreme Court was asked to decide on a matter involving an insurance claim dispute. The Petrowskis had taken out a policy with Hawkeye-Security Insurance for their property which later suffered damage due to flooding caused by city sewer backup during heavy rainstorms. When they filed a claim with their insurer, it was denied on grounds that such damages were not covered under their policy as it excluded losses resulting from water damage unless directly caused by windstorm or hail. The Petrowskis sued and won in lower courts but lost at the state supreme court level where it was ruled that since there wasn't any evidence showing that windstorm or hail had been responsible for causing overflow of sewers leading to flood damage, no coverage could be provided under terms of existing policy. However, when this case reached U.S Supreme Court, justices reversed previous ruling stating that while indeed there hadn't been any direct involvement of windstorm/hail in causing sewer backups leading to floods; these weather conditions did contribute indirectly towards overwhelming city's drainage system thereby making them liable for ensuing damages.

In the dissenting opinion for Petrowski et al. v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to allow recovery under an insurance policy, despite a violation of its terms, was misguided and set a dangerous precedent. He contended that it undermined the principle of freedom of contract by allowing courts to rewrite contracts in favor of one party at the expense of another. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on future cases involving similar circumstances where parties might be encouraged to violate contractual obligations with impunity based on this ruling. In his view, such decisions should not be made lightly or without due consideration for their broader implications.