How would you even discern fraud from the real thing? You could just get drunk and act drunker then stumble onto the road, you'd blow wet on the breathalyzer and the story is plausible enough that a public jury will side with you, the innocent guy on a night out or the guy down on his luck, over scary robot car company, then a precedent will be set.
Except where there is specific law that mentions the violation of law and affects your fact pattern (e.g. stand your ground laws that require someone to be committing a crime for the law to apply to the self defense case) violating the law at the time doesn't really mean much when it comes to who pays up. The law is between you and the state. Deciding who pays up is between you and the other party.
You can't just stumble onto the highway where the normal traffic flow is well in excess of the speed limit and expect to get a payday because whoever hits you will be speeding.
That said, most of this goes out the window if you are committing a handful of crimes that society has decided exempt you from most of the protections of the legal system (terrorism, driving drunk, etc). If you are drunk and someone jumps in front of your car to commit insurance fraud it won't matter if you have 360deg 4k video of it, you will likely lose.
