In the 1932 case of Washington Fidelity National Insurance Co. v. Burton, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an insurance policy claim. The plaintiff, Burton, had purchased a theft insurance policy from Washington Fidelity National Insurance Company for his automobile which was subsequently stolen and not recovered within thirty days as stipulated in the contract terms. However, when he filed a claim with the insurer to recover his loss under this policy's provisions, it was denied by them on grounds that he failed to provide proof of loss within sixty days after occurrence of theft as required by their agreement. The court held that while such contractual requirements are generally enforceable and binding upon parties involved; they may be waived if insurer’s actions indicate so or if they fail to insist upon strict compliance with these conditions before accepting premiums or settling claims under similar circumstances previously. Therefore since there were no indications suggesting otherwise here; it concluded that defendant company had indeed waived its right to demand adherence with this clause in question through its conduct hence making denial of plaintiff's claim unjustified thereby ruling in favor of him.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Washington Fidelity National Insurance Co. v. Burton argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring foreign corporations to consent to service of process as a condition for doing business within its borders was unconstitutional. The dissent contended that this requirement violated both due process and equal protection clauses, arguing it unfairly discriminated against out-of-state businesses by subjecting them to different legal standards than those applied to domestic companies. It also suggested that such laws could potentially discourage interstate commerce by creating an environment of uncertainty and potential liability for foreign corporations operating in other states, which would be contrary to the Constitution's Commerce Clause. Furthermore, they believed it was not within a state’s power or jurisdictional reach under federalism principles.