I would be amazed if an insurance company would risk the public relations disaster such an argument could create and even more surprised if they could get away with such an argument in court.

There have been many recorded events where high buildings were on fire and people jumped, some from heights that were impossible to survive from the impact, so there has been discussion about why people do this and there are many responses, for example, the fumes and smoke can cause suffocation, the heat the fire creates is impossible to tolerate, some who have survived jumping said they wanted relatives to be able to identify their body, etc, etc, so in our natural instinct to fight, fright or flight, suicide should not be the automatic response to escaping when we are faced with an unnatural event

I don't think it should be called suicide as that is a strong word.. They are simply easing their passing.. Anyway, both ways they will probably die.. either by getting burnt alive or jumping off the building and going splat on the floor.. That is what happened in the 9-11...

I think it sort of depends on how they jumped outfoxed the building. If igloo kid liken the person was trying to break their fall or grab onto the side of the building or another building, then I would say it isn't suicide. But if there was no effort for survival, the it possibly could be suicide.

I don't think it is suicide like they would of died either way no matter what they did, they didn't have the choice to live so how could it be considered suicide?