Thompson v. Insurance Company is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1881. The case involved a dispute between Thompson, a policyholder, and an insurance company. Thompson had taken out a policy with the insurance company, and when he died, his widow attempted to collect the benefits. The insurance company refused to pay, claiming that the policy was void because Thompson had failed to disclose a prior medical condition. The Supreme Court held that the insurance company was liable for the benefits. The Court reasoned that the policyholder had not intentionally concealed the medical condition, and that the insurance company had not asked for the information. The Court also held that the insurance company had not been prejudiced by the lack of disclosure, and that the policyholder had acted in good faith. The Court's decision established that insurance companies must act in good faith when dealing with policyholders, and that policyholders are not required to disclose information that the insurance company has not asked for. The decision also established that insurance companies cannot void a policy simply because the policyholder failed to disclose a prior medical condition.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Thompson v. Insurance Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that a contract of insurance is not an ordinary contract, but rather one which involves public policy considerations such as protecting those who are insured against loss or damage due to unforeseen events. As such, he believed it should be interpreted liberally in favor of the insured party so long as they had acted in good faith when entering into it. In this case, Justice Field argued that there was no evidence presented by either side indicating any bad faith on behalf of Mr. Thompson and thus his claim should have been upheld under the terms of his policy with the defendant company. Furthermore, he noted that if contracts were strictly interpreted according to their literal meaning without regard for context or intent then insurers would be able to avoid paying out claims simply by using ambiguous language within their policies - something which could potentially lead to unfair outcomes for consumers who rely upon them for protection from financial losses caused by unexpected circumstances beyond their control