In the case of Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Company, Limited v. United States in 1914, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving marine insurance coverage during wartime. The plaintiff, an English insurance company, had insured a German ship that was seized by American authorities during the Spanish-American War while it was docked at San Juan Harbor in Puerto Rico. The U.S government sold the vessel and its cargo to recoup costs associated with maintaining captured enemy ships. The insurer sought compensation from the U.S for their financial loss due to this seizure and sale under international law principles regarding neutrality rights. The court held that since Puerto Rico wasn't officially recognized as neutral territory when war broke out between Spain and America (as it was still technically part of Spain), these neutrality rights didn't apply here; therefore, no compensation would be granted to Thames & Mersey Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. This decision established important precedent about how such issues are handled in times of conflict or war.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Company, Limited v. United States (1914), it was argued that the majority's decision to hold an insurance company liable for a ship destroyed by a mine during war contradicted established principles of maritime law. The dissenting justices believed that such destruction should be considered as caused by "perils of the sea," which are typically excluded from marine insurance policies. They contended that mines placed in water during wartime were akin to natural hazards like rocks or reefs, not acts of human agency like piracy or enemy action. Therefore, they concluded that this loss should have been classified as resulting from perils of the sea and thus not covered under standard marine insurance policy terms.