The case Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Insurance Guaranty Association et al., 1981, revolved around the question of whether a state law could require insurance companies to contribute to a fund designed to protect policyholders in the event that an insurer becomes insolvent. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guaranty Association, stating that such laws do not violate either the Contract or Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. The court found that these assessments were not retroactive changes to contractual agreements but rather prospective measures aimed at protecting consumers from future insolvencies within their respective industries.

In the dissenting opinion for Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Insurance Guaranty Association, Justice Powell expressed concern over the majority's interpretation of contract impairment under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. He argued that this ruling could potentially undermine contractual obligations and destabilize commercial relationships by allowing states to modify contracts retroactively without sufficient justification or necessity. Furthermore, he contended that such a broad interpretation would erode confidence in contractual agreements as it opens up possibilities for arbitrary state interference in private contracts. In his view, there was no compelling public interest justifying North Carolina’s retrospective alteration of insurance policies; hence it constituted an unconstitutional impairment of contract rights.