In the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case, The Umbria, an Italian steamship was seized by American authorities for violating a neutrality law that prohibited foreign warships from taking on coal more than once in three months at any one port in the United States. The ship had been coaling twice within this period during the Italo-Ethiopian War of 1895-96. However, it argued that it was not technically a "warship" as defined under international law because Italy and Ethiopia were not recognized as belligerents by America at that time. Therefore, they claimed their actions did not violate U.S.'s neutrality laws. The court ruled against The Umbria's argument stating that even though America didn't officially recognize the conflict between Italy and Ethiopia as a war or both parties as belligerents, there existed an actual state of war which made The Umbria effectively a 'war vessel'. Thus its repeated coaling violated US neutrality laws regardless of formal recognition status given to conflicts/belligerents involved.

In the dissenting opinion for The Umbria case in 1896, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a British steamship company to limit its liability for lost luggage was inconsistent with American law. He believed that such limitations were contrary to public policy and should not be enforced by U.S courts. According to him, passengers on a ship have no real bargaining power when it comes to setting terms of transportation contracts; they are at an inherent disadvantage compared with shipping companies. Therefore, he contended that allowing these companies to limit their liability would essentially permit them to evade responsibility for any negligence or misconduct on their part. Furthermore, he asserted this could potentially endanger passenger safety as there would be less incentive for shipping companies to ensure safe passage if they knew they could avoid financial consequences.