Case, Facts and Issues, Dixon V. Providential Life Insurance Co

Fact: Dixon had committed suicide (a bad fact, page no. 1)
Issue: stipulations of the insurance contract
• The life compensation contract does not cover suicides (Edward & Frank, 2000). Within the life insurance agreement, cases of suicide are not part of the contract and the Providential Life Insurance Co. is not to honor its obligation in this case (Edward & Frank, 2000).
• All the issues that relate to the case of an accident on the insured are not part of the true occurrence because investigations show that Dixon had taken his life away and the insurance company is not to make any form of compensations.
• It was the duty of the insurance company to make investigations that were aimed at finding out the cause of death for insured so that it could establish their liability in meeting the demands of the contractual obligation (Edward & Frank, 2000).
• A number of forensic investigations wee necessary in determining what had cause Dixons death and this is what came up with the fact the death had not caused by any external factors. The material facts that are related to this case are necessary in coming up with the right cause of action.

Sub issue: failure to be within the insurance contract
Mrs. Dixon as the next of keen was not to get the life insurance compensation in this case because Mr. Dixon himself had taken away his own life (Edward & Frank, 2000). There is no way that she could prove that the death was natural and she was not to gain in any way in this case. As a widow, she was to bear the financial burden of taking care of the family because the insurance contract in this case was outside the circumstances of the given case. Any issues that related to the circumstances surrounding the death need a thorough consideration that was to be useful in meeting the contractual obligation as per their agreement (Edward & Frank, 2000). The issues that had been part of the insurance contract had been negated by the fact that Dixon had taken away his own life.

Fact: The entrance wound (a good fact, page no. 20)
Issue: the death was accidental
• The fact that an entrance wound was over his eye may be an indication that Mr. Dixon was killed. The manner in which the wound was appearing on the face indicates that another person shot him and this was the case of his death (Edward & Frank, 2000).
• Such indications are a proof that Dixon’s death is within the agreement regarding the extend of liability.
• The missiles’ path makes it possible for the investigations to come up with supportive evidence that is aimed at showing that Mrs. Dixon needs to be compensated.
• The manner in which the different accident indication are depicted on Dixon’s face make it possible for the investigative enquiry to come up with the best evidence that is supposed to help Mrs. Dixon in filling a litigation against the Providential Life Insurance Co.

Sub issue: if Mrs. Dixon is entitled to compensation
The fact that the shotgun wounds are evident makes it possible for Mrs. Dixon to be liable for a compensation that is expected to be inline with the contract that was signed between Mr. Dixon and the Providential Life Insurance Co. (Edward & Frank, 2000). All the related issues have been considered in this case and it will possible for Mrs. Dixon to have material facts that are expected to facilitated the right cause of action in meeting the contractual obligation by the Insurance company. All the sums that Mrs. Dixon is expected to get in this case are will be extended to her in making sure that she gains from the original contract (Edward & Frank, 2000). The Providential Life Insurance Co. will be expected honor its contractual obligation in this case by ensuring that the investigation findings are considered in taking the right action as per the original agreement.

Fact: Mr. Dixon explained to his wife that his life was in danger (a good fact, page no. 29)
Issue: it could be true that Dixon was killed
• Given that a few days before his death he had talked about the issue that his life was in danger, this is an indication of the business issues that he was going through and a number of enemies wanted to terminate his life (Edward & Frank, 2000).
• For a number of reasons, he found it fit to talk about the dangerous circumstances that he was trading through.
• The different aspects of the manner in which developmental progress cold be facilitated are necessary.

Sub issue: what kind of investigations could prove that Dixon was actually killed?
The courts of law had to come up with a number of investigations that could make it possible for them to determine the true cause of death which was to be the basis for determining if compensation could be enhanced to Mrs. Dixon the next of keen (Edward & Frank, 2000). The necessary investigations that were to be part of the fact finding had to be detailed enough so that best judgment in Dixon v. Providential Life Insurance co.

Fact: the proof burden (a bad fact, page no. 56)
Issue: determination of whether Mr. Dixon’s death was accidental
• The courts of law needed to prove that the death to Mr. Dixon had been caused by another party for the plaintiff to be gain from the insurance claims (Edward & Frank, 2000).
• A thorough investigation was necessary in coming with adequate evidence regarding whether the cause of the death falls within the contract that had been signed at the initiation of the contract.
• A thorough investigation was required in this case so that the true caused of the death could be found out in the best way possible.
• All the techniques that were to be employed in coming up with the best understanding regarding the true cause of death in this case needs an expert’s opinion so that a clear determination of the material facts related to the death could be established (Edward & Frank, 2000).
• The investigative process had to determine all the related circumstances that facilitated the best chronology of events expected to be to the advantage of the parties to the contract.

Sub issue: how possible is it for Dixon’s death to be proved accidental
If it could be proved that Dixon had been killed by another person, then it was possible for the ligation by Mrs. Dixon to succeed (Edward & Frank, 2000). All the considerations that could have been useful in the determination of the desirable process of compensating for damages formed the basis for the case which facilitated the true understanding regarding what could ensure the desirable implementation of the legal process. It is evident that Dixon’s death was contradictory and it was therefore necessary to come up with the required procedures that facilitated the true findings regarding the circumstances in which Dixon was found dead (Edward & Frank, 2000). Evidence in this particular situation was useful in determining the related aspects that could yield the required findings.

Witnesses’ and the reporters’ facts
Witnesses and reporters had contradicting details regarding the probable cause of Dixon’s death (Edward & Frank, 2000). Different details are available regarding the manner in which the gun was place in the room where he was found dead. Most witnesses suggested that Dixon had been killed by a different person. The speculations regarding the real cause of death by the witnesses can not be understood due to the variations in which the witnesses were expressing the story. Those who witnessed the body before it was moved to mortuary explain that there is no way that Dixon could have terminated his life. Reporters on the other hand suggest that were of the opinion that Dixon had committed suicide (Edward & Frank, 2000).Many people believed that the media could have attempted to seek attention from the public given that Dixon was a very prominent business man. All the details from the witnesses and the reporters called for an additional expert opinion that could realize the true findings regarding the case.

Reference