The Scottish Union and National Insurance Company v. Bowland case in 1904 revolved around a dispute over insurance coverage following a fire at the defendant's property. The plaintiff, an insurance company, argued that they were not liable to cover the damages because the defendant had violated conditions of their policy by storing more cotton on his premises than allowed under said policy. However, it was found that these conditions were not clearly communicated or agreed upon by both parties when entering into contract; therefore, they could not be enforced post-incident. Furthermore, evidence showed that even if such terms existed in writing within the policy document itself (which was disputed), Mr.Bowland would have been unable to read them due to his illiteracy - thus further invalidating any claim of violation on part of insured party against stipulated terms & conditions which he wasn't aware about or didn't understand fully while signing up for this insurance coverage plan initially with plaintiff company . As a result , Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr.Bowland thereby making Scottish Union and National Insurance Company liable for covering all losses incurred from this fire incident as per original agreement without any restrictions based on alleged violations related to storage limits etc.,

The dissenting opinion in the case of Scottish Union and National Insurance Company v. Bowland argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar matters. The dissenting justices believed that a contract, once made, should not be subject to changes based on subsequent legislation unless explicitly stated within the contract itself or if it is necessary for public welfare. They contended that insurance companies have a right to rely upon existing laws when entering into contracts and any alteration of these laws could unfairly impact their business operations. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “other securities” as used in Kentucky law at issue in this case, arguing it did not include reinsurance contracts like those involved here.