In the 1923 case of United States & Cuban Allied Works Engineering Corporation v. Lloyds, a dispute arose over an insurance claim related to property damage in Cuba during World War I. The U.S., on behalf of the Cuban Allied Works Engineering Corporation, sued Lloyd's Underwriters Syndicate No. 601 for refusing to honor an insurance policy covering war risks after damages occurred due to insurrection and civil commotion in Cuba during WWI. However, Lloyd's argued that such events did not constitute "war" as defined by their policy terms and thus refused payment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lloyd’s stating that the term “war” within this specific context referred only to conflicts between nations or recognized belligerents rather than internal disturbances like riots or rebellions within a country itself. Therefore, since there was no formal declaration of war involving Cuba at that time period nor any recognition from other countries about it being involved in a state of warfare, they concluded that the damages were not covered under the existing policy.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States & Cuban Allied Works Engineering Corporation v. Lloyds, a corporation, as Treasurer of Lloyds Underwriters Syndicate No. 601 et al., argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of international law and comity among nations. The dissent contended that the court should have recognized and enforced a judgment rendered by a Cuban court against an American company operating in Cuba under contract with the U.S government. It held that it is not within our jurisdiction to question or review decisions made by foreign courts on matters within their purview unless there are clear indications of fraud or injustice involved which were absent here. Furthermore, they believed this ruling could potentially harm diplomatic relations between countries if we fail to respect their judicial sovereignty.