Thompson v. Phenix Insurance Company was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Thompson, and the defendant, Phenix Insurance Company. Thompson had purchased a fire insurance policy from Phenix, and when his property was destroyed by fire, he sought to collect on the policy. Phenix refused to pay, claiming that the policy was void because Thompson had failed to disclose a prior fire on the property. The Supreme Court held that Phenix was liable for the damages, as Thompson had not intentionally concealed the prior fire. The Court reasoned that Thompson had not been aware of the prior fire, and that the policy did not require him to disclose it. The Court also held that Phenix had not been prejudiced by the lack of disclosure, as the prior fire had occurred several years before the policy was issued. The Court's decision established that an insurance company cannot void a policy due to a lack of disclosure if the insured was unaware of the information and the company was not prejudiced by the lack of disclosure. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and is still used today to determine the validity of insurance policies.

In the dissenting opinion of Thompson v. Phenix Insurance Company, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He believed that the court had incorrectly interpreted a provision in an insurance policy which stated that “no action shall lie against this company unless commenced within one year after discovery of loss or damage” as meaning only physical injury to property rather than economic losses due to delay in payment by an insurer. The dissent argued that such interpretation would lead to absurd results since it would allow insurers to escape liability for their own negligence if they delayed payments beyond a certain period of time regardless of whether any actual physical harm occurred or not. Furthermore, he noted that there were no other provisions in the contract which limited recovery based on when damages were discovered so interpreting it as such could potentially create unfairness and injustice towards insured parties who may have suffered significant financial losses due to delays caused by insurers but are unable to recover them because they did not discover them within one year from when they first arose.