In the case of Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Company v. Phoenix Indemnity Company, 1929, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an insurance claim. The Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Company had taken out an insurance policy with Phoenix Indemnity that covered damages to its property caused by various events including explosions. After one of their boilers exploded causing significant damage, they filed a claim for compensation under their policy. However, Phoenix denied the claim on grounds that the explosion was not included in coverage as it resulted from internal pressure rather than external causes which were specified in the policy terms and conditions. The court ruled in favor of Staten Island Rapid Transit stating that while there may have been ambiguity about what constituted an 'explosion' within context of this specific contract's language; such ambiguities should be interpreted against insurer who drafted it - thus making them liable for covering costs associated with boiler explosion.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Company v. Phoenix Indemnity Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold Phoenix liable for damages suffered by Staten Island due to a fire caused by a third party was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that since there was no explicit clause in their insurance contract covering such an event, Phoenix should not be held responsible. They contended that if every possible risk were implicitly covered under general liability policies without specific mention or additional premium charges, then insurers would face unlimited exposure and potential bankruptcy. This could also lead to increased premiums for all policyholders as insurers seek to cover these unexpected liabilities. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "property damage" within the context of this case and felt it set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving insurance coverage disputes.