My comment was rather more general and relating to contract law, rather than specific to any firearms legislation.
It's usually accepted that an agreement for the provision of goods or services such as insurance is essentially a contract, where both parties have obligations. The contract would have specific terms or conditions, and implied ones as well. All of these are like links in a circular chain, like a bracelet. If any of the links is broken you no longer have a functioning bracelet. And it doesn't matter which one is broken.
So if the policy had a condition in it that the policyholder should comply with the law at all times - which is quite likely and one would expect to see something like that - then non-compliance with the law would be a default of that condition and thereby a breach of contract. If the policyholder is in breach then the company has no obligation to pay out.
It is possible to write in clauses that effectively say, in the event of a breach of one condition, all the rest still apply. But it's normally understood that such a clause has to be specifically included; the default position is as I have described.
There is a difference between "conditions" and "warranties", not in the sense of guarantees but the party "warranting" to do something, or not to do something as the case may be. Breach of a warranty does not constitute breach of contract because "warranties" aren't "conditions".
And you thought it was easy..............
I had a shedload of this when I was in industry.