In Schacker v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a fire insurance policy was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Schacker, had purchased a fire insurance policy from the defendant, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, for a building he owned. The policy contained a clause that stated that the policy would be void if the building was not kept in good repair. Schacker argued that the clause was invalid because it was not included in the original policy, but was added later. The Supreme Court held that the clause was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the clause was not a new contract, but rather an amendment to the existing policy. The Court noted that the clause was clearly stated in the policy and that Schacker had agreed to the terms of the policy when he purchased it. The Court also noted that the clause was not so onerous as to be unconscionable. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the clause was valid and enforceable, and that Schacker was not entitled to any damages from Hartford Fire Insurance Company.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Schacker v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and would lead to an unjust result for the plaintiff. He argued that under earlier cases such as The Genesee Chief and The Thomas Jefferson, a shipowner could recover damages from an insurance company when goods were lost due to negligence of those entrusted with their care. In this case, he argued that since there was no evidence of any fault on behalf of either party other than the carrier’s failure to deliver them safely, it should be held liable for any losses incurred by its insured. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there had been some contributory negligence on part of Schacker or his agents in failing to properly secure his cargo before shipment, this did not absolve Hartford from liability because they had assumed responsibility for safe delivery upon issuing their policy. Thus he concluded that Schacker should have been allowed recovery against Hartford despite any potential contributory negligence on his part.