Semmes v. Hartford Insurance Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, William Semmes, and the defendant, Hartford Insurance Company. Semmes had purchased a policy from Hartford that provided coverage for his property in the event of a fire. When a fire occurred, Semmes filed a claim with Hartford, 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. Semmes argued that the clause was ambiguous and that he had not been negligent in causing the fire. The Supreme Court agreed with Semmes, ruling that the clause was ambiguous and that the insurance company had the burden of proving that the fire was caused by Semmes' negligence. The Court also held that the insurance company was liable for the damages caused by the fire, as the policy did not clearly exclude coverage for fires caused by the negligence of the insured. The Court's ruling established that insurance companies must clearly state any exclusions in their policies and that they must prove that the insured was negligent in order for the exclusion to be valid.

In Semmes v. Hartford Insurance Company, the dissenting opinion argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. The case involved a dispute between an insurance company and its insured over whether or not a fire loss was covered by their policy. The majority held that the insurer had no liability because of certain exclusions in the policy which they found to be valid and enforceable against the insured. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that these exclusions were too vague to be enforced; secondly, he contended that even if they were clear enough for enforcement purposes, there still remained some ambiguity as to how far those exclusions extended so as to exclude coverage for losses caused by fires such as in this case. He concluded his dissent with a plea for greater clarity when it comes to drafting insurance policies so as not only protect insurers but also ensure fairness towards their customers who are often left confused about what is actually covered under their policies due to overly broad language used in them.