In the case of Wright v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., 1940, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an insurance policy and its interpretation under Ohio state law. The plaintiff, Mrs. Wright, had taken out a life insurance policy on her husband with Union Central Life Insurance Company in 1926 but failed to pay premiums due in 1932 and again in 1933 which led to the lapse of the policy according to company rules. However, she argued that she was entitled to have it reinstated because she had not been properly notified about these lapses as required by Ohio law at that time. The court found for Mrs. Wright stating that although there were no explicit statutory requirements for notification of lapsed policies during those years under Ohio law, implicit requirements existed based upon established legal principles regarding fair dealing between insurers and insured parties. Therefore, since Union Central did not provide adequate notice before cancelling Mr.Wright's life insurance coverage due to non-payment of premiums; they violated their duty towards him as per implied contractual obligations set forth by common-law precedents within Ohio jurisdiction.

The dissenting opinion in the Wright v. Union Central Life Insurance Co. case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding contract law and insurance policies. The dissent emphasized that an insurance policy is a contract, and as such, its terms should be interpreted according to their plain meaning unless they are ambiguous or unclear. In this case, the policy clearly stated that it would not cover suicide within two years of issuance, regardless of whether it was voluntary or involuntary. Therefore, since Mr.Wright committed suicide within this period (albeit while insane), his beneficiaries were not entitled to receive any benefits under the policy's terms. The dissent also criticized the majority for relying on public sentiment rather than sound legal reasoning in reaching their decision.