In the case of Washburn and Moen Manufacturing Company v. Reliance Marine Insurance Company, 1900, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a marine insurance policy covered damages to cargo that occurred while being transported over land. The plaintiff, Washburn and Moen Manufacturing Company had insured their shipment of wire rods under an open marine policy issued by the defendant, Reliance Marine Insurance Company. During transportation from England to Worcester Massachusetts via New York City, some of these goods were damaged in transit on a railway between New York City and Worcester. The manufacturing company claimed for this loss under its marine insurance policy but it was denied by the insurer who argued that such damage fell outside the scope of coverage as it happened during inland transit rather than at sea or during loading/unloading operations at ports which are typically covered under such policies. The court ruled in favor of Washburn & Moen Manufacturing Co., stating that despite being called 'marine' insurance, these types of policies often cover more than just losses occurring at sea; they can also include "inland transportation risks" if specified within terms agreed upon by both parties when entering into contract.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Washburn and Moen Manufacturing Company v. Reliance Marine Insurance Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of maritime law. The dissent contended that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an unforeseeable event, such as a storm or other natural disaster, which could not have been prevented through reasonable care or foresight. It further stated that the doctrine of "general average," which requires all parties involved in a sea venture to share proportionately in losses resulting from sacrifices made for the common good, should apply only when there is an imminent peril threatening loss of property at sea. In this case, they believed no such threat existed and thus found it inappropriate to hold Washburn and Moen Manufacturing Company responsible for any damage costs incurred during transport under these circumstances.