In the case of Western Life Indemnity Company of Illinois v. Rupp, 1914, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an insurance policy claim. The insured party had died from tuberculosis and his wife sought to collect on his life insurance policy. However, the insurer denied her claim arguing that her husband had misrepresented his health condition when applying for coverage by failing to disclose he was suffering from tuberculosis at that time. The court ruled in favor of Mrs.Rupp (the widow), stating that it was incumbent upon the insurer to prove not only misrepresentation but also materiality - meaning they needed to show that knowledge about Mr.Rupp's true health status would have influenced their decision whether or not to insure him in first place. Since there was no evidence presented proving this point, Mrs.Rupp was entitled to receive benefits under her late husband’s life insurance policy.

In the dissenting opinion for Western Life Indemnity Company of Illinois v. Rupp, it was argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation and application of contract law principles. The dissenting justices believed that there was no ambiguity in the insurance policy's terms and conditions, thus negating any need to interpret them liberally or strictly against either party. They also disagreed with the majority's view on material misrepresentation by Mr. Rupp during his application process for life insurance coverage from Western Life Indemnity Company of Illinois; they opined that such a misrepresentation did not occur as per their understanding of facts presented before them during trial proceedings at lower courts level. Furthermore, they felt that even if such a misrepresentation had occurred, it should not have been considered sufficient grounds to void an otherwise validly executed contract between two consenting parties who were both aware about all relevant details pertaining to said agreement when entering into same.