While I agree about the 'its business point', it does seem like poor public policy to allow retail contracts to be structured in a way that omissions not related to the loss can be used to avoid payment.
When people enter the contract, they agree to fulfill one part of the bargain like (a) maintaining their licence currency, (b) maintaining their medical currency (c) etc. In return, the insurance company agrees to maintain their side of the bargain in paying out in case of a loss. If one side doesn't keep their side of the bargain, why should the other?
Why are so many people here continually trying to find loopholes and wriggle out of minor points like OBEYING THE LAW???????