Is it not likely that the insurance position is similar to that (for the UK at least) for motor vehicles.
UK law says that having issued a certificate of (motor) insurance, an insurer is always responsible for third party claims and cannot avoid them. This is regardless of what the insured may have done (i.e. drunk driving is in breach of insurance conditions but anyone you injure will be able to claim).
That means they pay any third parties and then have to try and recover what they can from the insured (or insured's estate) via the civil courts.
That's exactly what seems to happened in the Graham Hill case?
Insurers don't have to pay out the policyholder claim.