Conclusion
One cannot resolve all of the questions raised in this chapter. Analysis reveals that Caribbean jurists are understandably constrained by the weight of persuasive English authority.
But a number of questions remain, such as the relevance of rehabilitation of offenders legislation and the utility of marine insurance legislation. Further, what are the parameters of the moral hazard as it relates to outstanding criminal charges and acquittals, suspicions and or rumours of criminality? Does the moral hazard encompass bankruptcy/financial difficulty? Finally, is the duty of utmost good faith a continuing duty, and if so, what is the juristic character of the duty? As one examines the common law for answers to these questions, broadly the regional approach could be described as a functional one. The advantage with this is that it offers predictability by providing specific solutions to specific legal questions. The problem is, however, that the solution to the doctrine of utmost good faith is not necessarily effectively addressed by this method. A more conceptual approach, however, would offer adaptability and flexibility to embrace new legal questions.[484]Confronted with this inordinate burden, perhaps one solution is for the industry to adopt self-regulatory mechanisms providing guidelines as to the kind of circumstances that are likely to be considered material, copies of proposal forms, standard answers to questions coupled with a warning of the severe ramifications of an insured being found to have breached his duty of uberrimae fidei. In the absence of such assistance, the unfortunate policyholder is confronted with a burdensome obligation which shows no signs of abating. Until that time comes, there are more questions than answers.