In the Royal Insurance Company v. Miller case of 1905, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Royal Insurance Company. The dispute arose when Mr. Miller filed a claim with his insurer, Royal Insurance Company, for losses incurred due to a fire at his property which was leased to another party operating a laundry business there. However, the insurance company refused payment on grounds that their policy excluded coverage for properties used as laundries without their knowledge or consent and they were unaware of this usage at the time of issuing the policy. The court held that since Mr. Miller had not informed them about this particular use while obtaining insurance cover and it was explicitly stated in their terms that such uses would void coverage unless specifically agreed upon by both parties beforehand; therefore he could not claim compensation under those circumstances. This decision reinforced insurers' rights to limit liability based on specific conditions outlined in policies and emphasized insured parties' responsibility to disclose all relevant information accurately during negotiations.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Royal Insurance Company v. Miller, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state statute requiring foreign insurance companies to maintain assets within the state as a condition of doing business there violated principles of interstate commerce. The dissent contended that such requirements were discriminatory and protectionist in nature, serving only to disadvantage out-of-state businesses while favoring those based within the jurisdiction. They further asserted that this kind of legislation could lead to retaliatory measures from other states, potentially sparking trade wars and undermining national economic unity. This viewpoint held that states should not be allowed to impose conditions on foreign corporations which they do not also apply equally on their own domestic corporations.