The duty of disclosure which stems from the principle of the utmost good faith in insurance contract continues throughout the negotiations, at least until the contract has been completed. However, it was held, in The Litsion Pride case, that the duty of disclosure generally and positively continues even after the contract is concluded. It has been said that the first basis of this decision is the s. 17 of the M.I.A. 1906 where there is no specific restriction of the duty to pre-contractual stage in the wordings. The second reason is ‘held covered clauses’ of the Institute Clauses in marine policy where the conduct based on the continuing duty of disclosure is a prerequisite for this clauses. It is now recognized that the continuing duty of utmost good faith can be applied to the post-contractual stage in insurance contract. It is also possible, in some instances, that the continuing duty of disclosure can be applied to the post-contractual stage. However, the duty of utmost good faith at the post-contractual stage is simply not to act fraudulently and it does not necessarily included the duty of disclosure. The Litsion Pride does not seem to be the authority to show whether or not the continuing duty of disclosure as a common law rule is actually applied in practice. The reason is that it is more concerned with a contractual duty which stems from the particular terms in the policy. In conclusion, the continuing duty of disclosure should not be recognized as a common law rule in insurance contract.