Steinbach v. Insurance Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between a policyholder and an insurance company over the payment of a life insurance policy. The policyholder, Steinbach, had taken out a life insurance policy with the insurance company, and upon his death, the insurance company refused to pay the policy benefits. Steinbach's widow, Mrs. Steinbach, sued the insurance company for the policy benefits. The Supreme Court held that the insurance company was liable for the policy benefits. The Court reasoned that the insurance company had a duty to pay the policy benefits, as the policy was a contract between the parties. The Court further held that the insurance company was not entitled to any defenses, such as fraud or misrepresentation, as the policyholder had not made any false statements or misrepresentations in obtaining the policy. The Court's decision in Steinbach v. Insurance Company established that insurance companies have a duty to pay policy benefits when a policyholder dies, regardless of any defenses the insurance company may have. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving insurance companies and policyholders.

In Steinbach v. Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between an insurance company and its policyholder could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority of the court held that there was no enforceable agreement because there had not been any exchange of value or consideration for the promise made by either party. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion on two grounds: firstly, he argued that in some cases contracts can be binding even if they are not supported by consideration; secondly, he maintained that in this particular case both parties were aware of their respective obligations and thus should have expected them to be fulfilled regardless of whether or not they were supported by consideration. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since both parties knew what was expected from them under the terms of their agreement then it should still have been legally enforceable despite lacking any form of valuable exchange between them.