In the case of Rorick v. Devon Syndicate, Ltd., 1938, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for reinsurance could be enforced despite allegations that it violated public policy by encouraging gambling on human life. The plaintiff, Rorick, had taken out an insurance policy on his own life and then sought to reinsure this risk with defendant Devon Syndicate. When he died suddenly in a car accident before paying any premiums to Devon Syndicate, they refused to pay out under the reinsurance agreement arguing that it was essentially wagering on human life and therefore against public policy. The court ruled in favor of Rorick's estate stating that while contracts which are purely speculative or amount to mere wagers are indeed unenforceable as being contrary to public policy; this did not apply here because there existed an insurable interest at inception of both original insurance and subsequent reinsurance agreements. Therefore these were valid contracts rather than bets on when someone would die.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Rorick v. Devon Syndicate, Ltd., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect due to an overemphasis on technicalities rather than focusing on justice and fairness. The dissent believed that the plaintiff should have been allowed to pursue their claim against Devon Syndicate, despite any procedural errors or omissions they may have made during the initial filing process. They contended that these mistakes were minor and did not materially affect the substance of their claim or prejudice Devon Syndicate in any way. Therefore, it was unjust for such errors to result in dismissal of their lawsuit entirely without consideration of its merits.