In the case of Whitfield v. Aetna Life Insurance Company of Hartford in 1906, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an insurance claim. The plaintiff, Whitfield, had taken out a life insurance policy with Aetna and later fell ill. He was unable to continue paying his premiums due to his illness and subsequently died. His wife sought payment from the insurer but was denied because her husband's policy had lapsed due to non-payment of premiums before he passed away. The court held that under Connecticut law (where Aetna is based), if an insured person becomes totally disabled and can't pay their premium as a result, they are not required to do so until one year after written notice has been given by the insurer demanding such payment; only then would failure to pay cause forfeiture of benefits under the policy. Therefore, since no such notice was given by Aetna prior to Whitfield's death despite him being incapacitated for over two years before dying without making payments during this period - it meant that technically his coverage hadn’t lapsed when he died hence Mrs.Whitfield’s claim should have been honored.

The dissenting opinion in the Whitfield v. Aetna Life Insurance Company of Hartford case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply Connecticut law, which governed the insurance contract at issue. The dissent believed that under Connecticut law, an insured person who commits suicide while sane is not entitled to life insurance benefits unless there is clear language in the policy stating otherwise. In this case, they contended that such explicit language did not exist; therefore, no payment should be made on behalf of Mr. Whitfield’s estate following his suicide. They also disagreed with how evidence regarding Mr. Whitfield's mental state was handled during trial proceedings and felt it had been improperly excluded from consideration by jury members.