In the case of Queen Insurance Company of America v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Company, 1923, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute between two insurance companies over liability for fire damage to property they both insured. The plaintiff, Queen Insurance Company of America (QICA), had issued an insurance policy on certain properties which were later also insured by Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Co., without QICA's knowledge or consent. When the properties suffered fire damage, both insurers paid out their respective claims but QICA sought reimbursement from Globe & Rutgers arguing that it should have been notified about their additional coverage and thus shared in paying out claims. However, the court ruled against QICA stating that there was no legal obligation for one insurer to notify another when issuing a policy on already-insured property unless explicitly stated in their contract agreement or required by state law at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Queen Insurance Company of America v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Company, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's ruling that a reinsurance company could be held liable for losses sustained by an insurance company due to its own negligence or mismanagement. He argued that such liability was not explicitly stated in the contract between the two parties and therefore should not be assumed. Furthermore, he contended that allowing this kind of liability would unfairly penalize reinsurers who had no control over how their clients conducted business. In his view, it was unreasonable to hold one party accountable for another's mistakes without clear contractual language indicating such responsibility.