SpeeedBird,
Interesting point, but for retail insurance (which I am sure you do buy) the compliance requirements are much less onerous. If you drive with an expired MOT or less than minimum tyre tread (illegal of course and subject to a small administrative penalty) it does not totally void your third party liability cover. In addition, my understanding of the law (limited as it may be) is that these types of very broad conditions are generally not enforceable in common end consumer contracts.
I will try and keep up the poor work and remain bemused as ever that EASA have imposed an insurance requirement to pay-out for damage to people and things on the ground, the CAA spends money writing to everyone to verify compliance and then on the day the third party needs to call on it - effectively the insurance is void! Great public policy.
PS -
It seems desperately unreasonable in one case FL referred that what appears to be a highly conscientious pilot with a full set of ratings from two countries - both current, with exemplary training, excellent aircraft, current medical, can have his family bankrupted and the lives of people he injured/killed only partially compensated due to his failure to renew a based on CoE - which probably was only relevant due to the flight being outside the UK. Yes, I know the operation was therefore not legal, but it does seem an extraordinary penalty on the family and the injured parties.
Note - I have no idea what third party liability might have existed in the specific case FL quoted.