The United States v. Seckinger case in 1969 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of an indemnity clause in a government contract. M.O. Seckinger Co., a private contractor, was hired by the U.S Navy to perform electrical work at one of its facilities and during this process, an employee got injured due to negligence on part of the Navy personnel. The injured party sued the government for damages which led to this case as there was an indemnification clause present in their contract with Seckinger Co., stating that they would bear all costs arising from injury or damage caused by their operations under this agreement. However, it was argued that since the accident occurred due to negligence on part of navy personnel rather than any actions taken by Seckinger Co., they should not be held responsible for paying these damages according to terms set out in said clause. The Supreme Court ruled against Seckinger Co., interpreting that even though fault lay with navy employees, language used within contractual clauses did not exempt them from liability if accidents happened while performing tasks outlined within said contracts regardless who is directly at fault.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Seckinger, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to hold a contractor liable for injuries sustained by an employee was incorrect. He contended that this ruling contradicted previous decisions in which contractors were not held responsible unless they had specifically agreed to assume such liability. According to him, the contract did not explicitly state that Seckinger would be accountable for any and all accidents on site; instead it merely required them to comply with safety regulations and procedures set forth by government agencies. Therefore, he believed there was no basis upon which Seckinger could be deemed negligent or at fault under these circumstances as per their contractual obligations.