All insurance contracts are fiduciary contracts, in other words they involve a level of trust on both sides, the insured and the insurer. The utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei) forms the basis of all such contracts. Both the insurer and the insured must adhere to this principle. This essay will examine the role of the insurer and the insured in ensuring full disclosure of all material facts. Disclosure of information is critically important as failure to disclose may void the contract. We will examine cases where utmost good faith and disclosure of material facts were crucial. Section 17 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 states: "A contract of marine insurance is a contract based on the utmost good faith, and if the utmost good faith is not complied with by either party, the contract may be canceled by the other part". This act also states in section 18 that the duty of disclosure falls on the insured because it is only the insured who has full knowledge of the risk and consequently failure to disclose by the insured may allow the insurer to void the contract. In other words, this act places the onus on the insured to disclose and by doing so prevents fraud, but it may also allow the insurer to avoid paying, or terminate the contract if it can demonstrate that the insured failed to disclose. The first landmark insurance case dealing with disclosure was Carter v Boehm (1776). Carter took out insurance to cover Fort Marlborough in the East Indies. The insurance covered the attack against foreign invasion. They knew they would be able to withstand an attack on the natives, however the French army managed to overrun the fort. The insurance company argued that the fort's inability to resist attacks...middle of paper....g. where the insured fails to “read and check the questions and answers in sufficient detail”. (Ombudsman News May/June 2005) In the event of non-disclosure the onus is on the insured to demonstrate that the insurer would have entered into the same contract if it had known of the undisclosed facts. In the case of Aro Road and LandVehicle V. The Insurance Corporation of Ireland (1986) the undisclosed fact was that the insured was a convicted criminal. The insurer insured the vehicle for the transportation of goods. The vehicle went up in flames. The insurer argued that the material fact that the insured was a criminal had not been disclosed and that this would influence its judgment. The court agreed, but the appeals court ruled that there was no direct connection between the material event and the car fire and ruled that the insurance company had to compensate.