For almost 7 years I have been somewhat spooked by FlyingLawyer's warning about the Condition Precedent clause. I note that the
Insurance Act 2015 comes into force on 12 August 2016.
It includes
11 Terms not relevant to the actual loss
(1)This section applies to a term (express or implied) of a contract of insurance, other than a term defining the risk as a whole, if compliance with it would tend to reduce the risk of one or more of the following—
(a)loss of a particular kind,
(b)loss at a particular location,
(c)loss at a particular time.
(2)If a loss occurs, and the term has not been complied with, the insurer may not rely on the non-compliance to exclude, limit or discharge its liability under the contract for the loss if the insured satisfies subsection (3).
(3)The insured satisfies this subsection if it shows that the non-compliance with the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.
(4)This section may apply in addition to section 10. [Breach of Warranty]
Does this eliminate or at least mitigate the concern about a Condition Precedent clause?