In the case of Windett v. Union Mutual Life Insurance Company, 1891, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a life insurance policy could be considered void if it was taken out by an individual who had no insurable interest in the life of another person. The court ruled that such policies are indeed invalid and cannot be enforced. This decision came after Mr. Windett took out a policy on his brother's life without having any financial dependence or obligation to him - essentially betting on his death for profit. When his brother died, he sought to collect from Union Mutual Life Insurance Company but they refused payment arguing that he had no insurable interest in his brother's life when he obtained the policy hence making it null and void under law.

The dissenting opinion in the Windett v. Union Mutual Life Insurance Company case argued that the insurance policy was not void due to misrepresentation or concealment of material facts by Mr. Windett, as claimed by the majority. The dissenting justices contended that there was no evidence proving that Mr. Windett had intentionally concealed his health condition from the insurer at any point during their contract negotiations and hence it could not be considered a fraudulent act on his part which would render the policy null and void under Maine law where this company is based out of. They also held that even if he did fail to disclose certain information about his health, it should have been incumbent upon Union Mutual Life Insurance Company to ask for such details before issuing him a life insurance policy rather than later accusing him of fraud after he passed away when they were obligated to pay up on said policy.