In the case of Charles Quackenbush, California Insurance Commissioner, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company (1995), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over insurance claims related to earthquake damage in California. The state's insurance commissioner had ordered Allstate and other insurers to pay certain disputed claims or face penalties under state law. However, Allstate argued that it was not required to comply because its policies were governed by federal law due to an earlier decision by Congress which preempted state regulation of such matters when it passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. The court ruled in favor of Allstate stating that while states generally have broad power to regulate insurance companies within their borders, this authority is limited when there is a clear conflict between state and federal laws on specific issues like those involved here.

In the dissenting opinion for Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Company, Justice Ginsburg argued that federal courts should not abstain from deciding cases under Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943), simply because they involve complex state regulatory schemes. She believed this case did not meet the criteria set out in Burford and thus, it was inappropriate to apply its doctrine of abstention here. The majority's decision to expand the scope of Burford abstention, she warned, could lead federal courts to decline jurisdiction over a wide range of cases involving state regulation - an outcome she viewed as contrary to Congress' intent when it granted diversity jurisdiction to federal courts. Furthermore, Justice Ginsburg disagreed with remanding the case back for dismissal rather than staying proceedings until related state court actions were resolved; dismissing instead of staying would deny plaintiffs their right to choose a federal forum.