In the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Riefler case of 1915, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an insurance claim. The plaintiff, Mr. Riefler, had taken out a policy from U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company that insured him against loss due to burglary in his home. A theft occurred at his residence while he was away on vacation but no signs of forcible entry were found by investigators which led to the company refusing to pay out on the claim citing terms within their contract that required evidence of forced entry for it to be considered as burglary under their policy definition. Riefler sued for breach of contract and won in lower courts leading US Fidelity & Guaranty Co., appealing up until reaching Supreme Court level where they argued that without proof of forcible entry there could not have been any 'burglary' as per their contractual agreement. The Supreme Court sided with Mr.Riefler stating that although there was no physical evidence suggesting forceful break-in, other circumstantial evidences like missing items from locked rooms suggested otherwise thus constituting sufficient grounds for considering this incident as a burglary under legal definitions thereby obligating insurer's responsibility towards payout.

In the dissenting opinion for United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Riefler, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Riefler contradicted established legal principles regarding insurance contracts. The dissent contended that an insurer should not be held liable when an insured party violates terms of their policy agreement, as was the case with Riefler who had failed to maintain fire extinguishing equipment as required by his policy with USF&G Co. It was further asserted that this violation constituted a material breach of contract which should have absolved the insurer from any obligation to pay out on claims related to fires at Riefler's property. The dissent also took issue with how evidence had been handled during trial proceedings, arguing there were errors made by both parties which could have affected final judgment.