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.
Well, the story doesn't actually say what the language of the contract says. You say it says "damages caused during a suicide attempt." But it might not use that language. It might use some different language that is more supportive of what I suggested. That might be how the jury interpreted it, but since these insurance policies are required to have certain coverage under the law, I would not assume that the jury's conclusion is decisive.
Afterall, why do we have laws requiring drivers to be insured at all, if not to protect innocent people who they might run into? And if that's the purpose of it, then why should it matter whether the person who caused the injury was trying to commit suicide when he did it? You've also got to interpret these policies so that they comply with the law. If the law does not allow an exclusion for suicides, and these policies are being marketed in Florida under the guise that they comply with the Florida laws, then it seems to me that a court should rule that the provision does not except suicide, even if it expressly says that it does.
Except the injured man is not the one who agreed to this contract and commited sucide. He can't be held to a contract he didn't agree to.