In Union Insurance Company v. Smith, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract of insurance was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Union Insurance Company, had issued a policy of insurance to the defendant, Smith, covering the loss of a shipment of goods. The policy contained a clause that stated that the insurance company would not be liable for any losses caused by the negligence of the insured. Smith had negligently failed to properly secure the goods, resulting in their loss. The Supreme Court held that the clause in the policy was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the clause was clear and unambiguous, and that Smith had agreed to it when he signed the policy. The Court also noted that the clause was not against public policy, as it did not encourage negligence. As a result, the Court held that the insurance company was not liable for the loss of the goods.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Union Insurance Company v. Smith, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a party who had been wrongfully deprived of their property could not be denied recovery simply because they were unable to prove ownership at trial. In this case, Smith had paid premiums on his policy for several years before it was cancelled by Union Insurance Company without cause or notice; thus he should have been able to recover damages from them regardless of whether he could prove ownership at trial. Justice Field concluded that while there may have been some technical deficiencies in Smith's proof of title, these did not justify denying him compensation for his losses due to Union Insurance Company's wrongful act.