In the case of Wynkoop, Hallenbeck, Crawford Company v. Gaines in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an insurance policy claim. The plaintiff company had insured a building owned by defendant Gaines and when it was destroyed by fire, they refused to pay out the claim due to alleged misrepresentations made by Gaines about the property's value during negotiations for coverage. The court held that even if there were misrepresentations or concealment of facts regarding the value of property at issue during negotiations for insurance coverage, as long as these did not relate directly to risk factors associated with insuring said property (i.e., its susceptibility to damage), then such actions would not void an otherwise valid contract between insurer and insured party. Therefore, since any potential inaccuracies in valuation did not affect how likely it was that Gaines' building might be damaged or destroyed - which is what Wynkoop et al were ostensibly agreeing to insure against - their refusal to honor his claim was unjustified.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Wynkoop, Hallenbeck, Crawford Company v. Gaines argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on out-of-state corporations doing business within New York was unconstitutional. The dissent contended that this ruling violated the Commerce Clause by placing an undue burden on interstate commerce and discriminated against out-of-state businesses. They believed it was not fair for these companies to be taxed twice: once in their home state and again when they conducted business in another state like New York. This double taxation could potentially discourage or inhibit interstate commerce, which would go against one of the main purposes of the Commerce Clause - promoting free trade among states. Furthermore, they felt there should be clear guidelines about what constitutes "doing business" within a state to avoid arbitrary application of such taxes.