In insurance law, the notion of uberrima fides has long been considered essential to a good contractual relationship. And yet, the use of the notion to explain the nature or the object of the contractual responsibilities of both client and insurer appears to be less and less founded. Given that its conception is rather moral than juridical, the notion leaves room for the subjective interpretation of the courts and legal representatives. In a context thus open to rhetoric, those not specialized in law and insurance cannot fully realize the significance of their insurance contracts and the ensuing responsibilities. Hence, the utmost good faith cannot contribute to a renewed elaboration of a theory of insurance law which might be appropriated as much by the legal representatives than it could be by the contractual parties. The recourse to uberrima fides offers resistance to some possible abuses by the respective parties, presenting the contract as an inevitably hostile play that opposes insured and insurer and which thus needs to be overseen by the moral concept. Placing emphasis on the greater context within which the parties are to reach an understanding can rather allow the desirable move beyond contractual morality, favoring law over morality.