It has always been acknowledged that the duty of disclosure has suffered from an uneven development. Although the duty of utmost good faith has been recognised as a reciprocal one owed by both parties to an insurance contract, it is only in recent years that the duty as owed to the insured has seen any real development. However, although the Skandia litigation did result in a certain degree of clarification, it raised more questions than it answered. This paper will seek to examine some of the uncertainties brought about by the resurrection of this duty. It will further re-examine the issue of damages as a remedy for the breach of the duty, scrutinising in particular the reasons given by the Court of Appeal for rejecting such a remedy.