Question: What case, involving an enslaved man of "the negro African race" who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom, referenced American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton?

Context paragraphs:
Dred Scott v. Sandford: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) , also known simply as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law.  It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves", whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States.  Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race" who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom.  In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request.  The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.

American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton: American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511 (1828) , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.  The case involved the validity of a local court established by Congress in the Florida Territory whose judges lacked life tenure, as mandated by Article III of the Constitution.  Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the courts on the basis of Congress's broad power to enact local laws for territories under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.  The case was later discussed in "Dred Scott v. Sandford", where Chief Justice Roger Taney distinguished it in holding that Congress could not ban slavery within a territory.

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.: McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957), was a case following in the line of decisions interpreting "International Shoe v. Washington".  The Court declared that California did not violate the Due Process Clause by entering a judgment upon a Texas insurance company who was engaged in a dispute over a policy it maintained with a California resident.  The importance of this finding is highlighted by the facts of the case; mainly that International Life Insurance did no other business within the state of California besides maintaining this single policy, which the company became responsible for by its acquisition of another insurance company which previously had held the policy.  However; the case never explicitly stated that no other business was conducted within California and the previous assumption is presumptive by definition.

Red Sea Insurance Co Ltd v Bouygues SA: Red Sea Insurance Co Ltd v Bouygues SA [1995] 1 AC 190 is a judicial decision of the Privy Council relating to choice of law in tort.  The case was an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong, but as the case was decided in Hong Kong pursuant to the English Law Ordinance, section 3(1), it is also taken to be an authoritative statement of English law.

Citizens Insurance Co of Canada v Parsons: Citizens Insurance Co of Canada v Parsons is a major Canadian constitutional case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.  It interpreted the property and civil rights clause of section 92(13) in the Constitution Act, 1867 to be read expansively, to include contracts related to insurance to be within the power of the provincial governments, but the countervailing Trade and Commerce clause of section 91(2) was to be read narrowly.

Cotton production in the United States: Cotton production is an important economic factor in the United States as the country leads, worldwide, in cotton exportation.  The United States is ranked third in production, behind China and India.  Almost all of the cotton fiber growth and production occurs in southern and western states, dominated by Texas, California, Arizona, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana.  More than 99 percent of the cotton grown in the US is of the Upland variety, with the rest being American Pima.  Cotton production is a $25 billion-per-year industry in the United States, employing over 200,000 people in total, as against growth of forty billion pounds a year from 77 million acres of land covering more than eighty countries.  The final estimate of U.S. cotton production in 2012 was 17.31 million bales, with the corresponding figures for China and India being 35 million and 26.5 million bales, respectively.

Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of punitive damages in contract.  The case related to the oppressive conduct of an insurance company in dealing with the policyholders' claim following a fire.  According to the majority, "[t]his was an exceptional case that justified an exceptional remedy."

Jose L. Cuisia Jr.: Jose Lampe Cuisia, Jr. (born 16 July 1944) was the seventh Governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines, serving from 1990 to 1993.  and formerly the Ambassador of the Republic of the Philippines to the United States of America.  He is vice-chairman in the Philippine American Life and General Insurance Co., in which he had been CEO for a decade until its American owners, AIG, went bankrupt and had to sell out to Asian investors.  He is also vice chairman of SM Prime Holdings.  He is also a director of the Ayalas’ Manila Water Co., in cement conglomerate Holcim Philippines, in call-center firm Integra Business Processing Solutions, in property firm ICCP Holdings, and in Beacon Property Ventures.  Likewise, Cuisia is chairman of The Covenant Car Co.

General Accident Insurance v Xhego: General Accident Insurance Co South Africa Ltd v Xhego and Others is an important case in the South African law of delict, particularly the area of compensation for motor vehicle accidents.  The case was heard in the Appellate Division, by Joubert JA, Van Heerden JA, Smalberger JA, F H Grosskopf JA and Van Coller AJA, on November 18, 1991, with judgment handed down on November 29.  The appellant, whose attorneys were Silberbauers, Cape Town, and Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein, was represented by BM Griesel.  The respondents, whose attorneys were Coulter, Van Gend & Kotze, Claremont, and Webbers, Bloemfontein, were represented by BJR Whitehead.

Kemp v Santam: "Kemp v Santam Insurance Co Ltd and Another" is an important case in the South African law of delict.  It was heard in the Cape Provincial Division by Diemont J on 5 and 6 November, and 11 to 13 December 1974.  Judgment was handed down on 12 February 1975.  The plaintiff was represented by LA Rose-Innes, SC, and with him IG Farlam.  His attorneys were Silberbauers.  The defendant was represented by GD Griessel, and his attorneys were Jan S. de Villiers & Sons.  Attorneys for the third party to the case were Truter & Lombard, and they were represented by Edwin A. Kellaway.

Supporting paragraphs: American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton Dred Scott v. Sandford
Answer: Dred Scott v. Sandford