This article explores the distinction between the alternative explanations for the remedy of insurance risk avoidance in the event of breach of the duty of utmost good faith. It asks whether the remedy is an avoidance of a void contract, or a rescission of a voidable contract. The article then considers the general significance of that distinction to the capacity of a party to exercise its primary right of avoidance, and to the secondary rights of the contracting parties - arising in consequence of the avoidance - to prevent unjust enrichment or achieve restitution. Before considering the potential for - and the desirability of - further reform in the area, the article evaluates the importance of the legal characterisation of insurance risk avoidance in the particular context of insurance contracts affording indemnity to multiple insured parties
