The Insurance Companies v. Wright was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1863. The dispute arose when two insurance companies refused to pay out on policies they had issued to William Wright, who had died of yellow fever while traveling abroad. The companies argued that the policy specifically excluded any losses due to "disease or epidemics," and thus were not liable for payment. However, Wright's estate countered that this exclusion clause should be interpreted narrowly as only applying to diseases which were endemic at the time of purchase; since yellow fever was not present in Europe at that time, it did not fall under this exclusionary language and therefore could be covered by their policies. After considering both sides' arguments, the court ultimately sided with Wright's estate and held that insurers must honor their contracts even if an unforeseen event occurs after purchase so long as it is unrelated to any preexisting conditions or exclusions listed in the contract itself.

In The Insurance Companies v. Wright, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a policy of insurance issued by two companies to an individual could be enforced against them when they had not been notified that the insured party had assigned their rights under the policy to another person. In this case, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that while it is true that notification of assignment should have been given to both insurers before any action could be taken on behalf of the assignee, there were certain circumstances present in this particular case which made such notification unnecessary and thus did not invalidate the assignment. He further noted that if one insurer had received notice but failed to act upon it or inform its partner company then they would still remain liable for payment as per their contract with the original insured party. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that even though some technicalities may have been overlooked in this instance due to extenuating circumstances, justice should prevail and both insurers should honor their contractual obligations regardless of who holds title over them at any given time.