Riddlesbarger v. Hartford Insurance Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1868. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Riddlesbarger, and the defendant, Hartford Insurance Company, over a fire insurance policy. Riddlesbarger had purchased a policy from Hartford Insurance Company to cover his property in the event of a fire. When a fire occurred, Riddlesbarger filed a claim with the company, but the company refused to pay the claim, citing a clause in the policy that excluded coverage for fires caused by the negligence of the insured. Riddlesbarger argued that the clause was ambiguous and that the company should have paid the claim. The Supreme Court agreed with Riddlesbarger, ruling that the clause was ambiguous and that the company should have paid the claim. The Court held that the clause should be interpreted in favor of the insured, and that the company should have paid the claim. This ruling established the principle that insurance policies should be interpreted in favor of the insured, and that insurance companies should not be allowed to use ambiguous clauses to deny claims.

In Riddlesbarger v. Hartford Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an insurance company could be held liable for a fire that had been caused by arson. The majority opinion found that the insurance company was not liable because they had no knowledge of any wrongdoing and were therefore not responsible for damages resulting from it. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that the insurer should have known about potential risks associated with insuring property against fire and thus should be held accountable for losses due to arson committed after taking out such a policy. He reasoned that if insurers are allowed to avoid liability when faced with claims arising from fires set intentionally, then there would be little incentive for them to take reasonable steps towards preventing or detecting frauds perpetrated upon them by their customers.