gg5; meikyo

@@ -18,0 +19,3 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -19,0 +23 @@
+<gloss>warranty</gloss>

OK

I agree with Marcus. 保険 isn't adjectival unless "保険のX" can mean "insured X" (which it can't, as far as I know).
See the discussion on the 金融 entry for my thoughts about adj-no.

@@ -18 +17,0 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>

I don't think 保険の is adjectival in
保険の財源
保険の衝突
保険の補償
I think it's bog-standard noun use. Not finding anything else that looks like an adjective here:
https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=保険の (search word: 保険の)

I don't think we should be using adj-no this haphazardly. Sometimes the line is a little unclear whether noun+の is really adjectival or 
not, but in those cases I think we can consider what use the information we're providing is to the user. What I mean by this is that telling 
a user that a noun for "strength" is an adj-no is useful - you don't have to jump logical hoops to arrive at the conclusion that the 
Japanese word can also be used like the adjective "strong". The same cannot be said for an entry like "insurance": if the only possible 
English adjective equivalent is "relating to insurances; of an insurance" then we're just adding a tag to explain noun+の+noun usage that 
already applies to all nouns. It's not useful or helpful.