In the case of Porter v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not an insurance company was required to pay out a claim for damages resulting from a car accident, even though the driver at fault had been drinking and driving illegally. The court found that while it is illegal to drink and drive, this does not automatically void an insurance policy if there is no explicit clause stating so in the contract. Therefore, despite his illegal actions leading up to the accident, Mr. Porter's insurer (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) was still legally obligated to cover his liability for any damage caused during the incident under their existing agreement.

In the dissenting opinion for Porter v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to allow a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over an insurance company based on service of process upon its insured was inconsistent with due process and precedent. He contended that it is not enough for a defendant to have minimum contacts with a state; instead, those contacts must be related to the litigation at hand. In this case, he believed there was no such relationship between Aetna’s contact in California (the issuance of an insurance policy) and Porter’s accident in Nevada. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of International Shoe Co v Washington as allowing jurisdiction based solely on foreseeability or potential liability under an insurance contract. Instead, he maintained that specific activities within a state should form basis for jurisdiction rather than mere contractual obligations which could potentially lead into lawsuits anywhere across states where policies are issued.