The policy's stipulation requiring notice of other insurance policies was unreasonable and against public policy.
The insurance company had a duty to investigate and determine the extent of the damage before denying the claim.
The policy's stipulation was not a condition precedent to the policy's validity, and therefore, the insurance company could not use it as a basis to deny the claim.
On the other hand, the main arguments against the court's decision were:
The policy's stipulation was a valid condition of the contract and Carpenter had an obligation to comply with it.
The insurance company had no duty to investigate the claim beyond what was provided in the policy.
The court's decision undermined the principle of freedom of contract and the ability of parties to agree to certain terms in an insurance policy.
The impact of this case on future insurance disputes was significant. It established that insurance companies have a duty to investigate claims and determine the extent of damage before denying a claim. It also set a precedent that policies with similar stipulations may be deemed unreasonable and against public policy. This case has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving insurance disputes, solidifying its place as a landmark case in the history of insurance law.