The New England Insurance Company brought a case against the Brig Sarah Ann, Woodbury and others, claiming that they had failed to pay for insurance coverage on goods shipped from Boston to Liverpool. The claimants argued that the policy was invalid because it did not include an express warranty of seaworthiness. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the insurer, finding that there was no need for such a warranty as long as all other terms and conditions were met. Furthermore, since the ship sailed without any known defects or deficiencies at the time of departure, it could be assumed that she was seaworthy when insured by New England Insurance Company. This ruling established precedent which held insurers liable even if they did not explicitly guarantee seaworthiness in their policies so long as all other requirements were fulfilled.

In The New England Insurance Company vs. the Brig Sarah Ann, Woodbury and Others, Claimants (1839), Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the insurance company should not be held liable for losses incurred by the claimants due to an act of God. He reasoned that since there was no negligence on behalf of either party involved in this case, it would be unjust to hold one party responsible for damages caused by natural forces beyond their control. Furthermore, he noted that if insurers were expected to pay out claims regardless of fault or cause then they could become insolvent and unable to provide coverage when needed most. As such, Justice McLean concluded that while both parties had suffered loss as a result of this incident neither should bear responsibility for it given its extraordinary nature and lack of human involvement or culpability.