Stagg v. Insurance Company was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1870. The case involved a dispute between a policyholder and an insurance company. The policyholder, Stagg, had purchased a policy from the insurance company that provided coverage for his property in the event of a fire. When Stagg's property was damaged by a fire, he filed a claim with the insurance company. The insurance company denied the claim, arguing that the policy did not cover the damage caused by the fire. Stagg then filed a lawsuit against the insurance company, arguing that the policy should have covered the damage caused by the fire. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Stagg, ruling that the insurance company was liable for the damage caused by the fire. The Court held that the insurance company had a duty to provide coverage for the damage caused by the fire, and that the policy should have been interpreted to provide such coverage. The Court also held that the insurance company had breached its duty to Stagg by denying the claim. As a result, the Court ordered the insurance company to pay Stagg for the damage caused by the fire.

In Stagg v. Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an insurance company had a right to refuse payment of a claim on the grounds that it was not made within the time limit specified in its policy. The majority opinion held that since there was no dispute as to when the loss occurred and when notice of it had been given, and since this notice fell within two days after expiration of the policy's limitation period, then payment should be made by the insurer. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that if parties are allowed to contract for certain conditions under which they will do business together then those terms must be respected or else contracts would become meaningless. He argued further that any ambiguity in such contracts should be interpreted against their drafter - in this case being against the insurer who drafted them - so as not to allow them unfair advantage over their customers. Therefore he concluded that while sympathy may lie with Stagg due his unfortunate circumstances, justice requires adherence to contractual obligations regardless of how harsh they may seem at times