In the case of Travelers Protective Association of America v. Prinsen (1933), the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Prinsen. The plaintiff, Travelers Protective Association of America, had sought to avoid payment on an accident insurance policy it issued to Prinsen after he lost his eyesight due to a disease that was not caused by any injury or trauma. The association argued that their policy only covered loss resulting directly and independently from all other causes from bodily injuries sustained through external, violent and accidental means. However, Justice Cardozo stated for a unanimous court that while there was no physical injury involved in this case; still under the terms of this contract as written by insurer itself - if disability follows within 90 days after exposure to weather elements which is an accidental means then such disability comes within coverage even though result produced might have been same whether exposure occurred or not.

In the dissenting opinion for Travelers Protective Association of America v. Prinsen, it was argued that the majority's decision contradicted previous rulings and established principles regarding contracts. The dissenting justices believed that a contract should not be considered invalid simply because one party benefits more than another or because its terms are harsh or oppressive to one side. They maintained that if both parties willingly entered into an agreement with full knowledge of its conditions, then they must abide by those terms regardless of their fairness. Furthermore, they contended that courts should not interfere in such agreements unless there is evidence of fraud, mistake, undue influence or illegality involved in their formation. In this case, since no such factors were present and Mr. Prinsen had voluntarily signed up for membership knowing fully well about the association’s rules including limitations on liability claims against it; he should be held accountable to his contractual obligations rather than being allowed to evade them based on perceived unfairness.