Yes, but the law requires everyone to be insured in order to protect the guys you might run into. Shouldn't the law require them to protect those people whether it was an accident, or intentional? It's not purely a contractual thing. The guy he ran into did not agree to it.
Of course, if that's the law, then that's the law. But I'm not sure it really is the law. The suicide clause was obviously intended to prevent the survivors of someone who commits suicide from collecting. But was it intented to prevent someone who was injured as an innocent bystander to the suicide? I question that.
This is a JURY deciding to deny coverage.
This was probably Progressive Insurance making a calculated business decision to establish case law which has no coverage for intentional torts.
This man has just been hit twice.
This way ONLY ACCICENTS are covered. If someone hits your car on purpose you have no coverage. So if someone wants to escape insurance company liabilty, they just screw you by saying they did it on purpose. (of course then criminal liablity attaches)
Legislated law doesn't have much to do with it, other than contract law. The insurance contract states what they cover and what they don't.
The suicide clause was obviously intended to prevent the survivors of someone who commits suicide from collecting.
We are not talking about life insurance, we are talking about automobile liability insurance.
The liability insurance contract excludes damages caused by the insuree during a suicide attempt.
End of story, unless you believe that contracts shouldn't mean what they say.