https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281088 Insurance policy interpretation turned on the insurer's own pleadings and the surrounding facts: where the written statement did not plead that "unlimited personal injury" was confined to third-party risk, but instead claimed the wording was inserted by mistake, and no evidence or amendment was produced to change that position, the High Court could not discard the trial court's factual finding and replace it with a contrary legal inference. The cover was therefore held to extend as found by the trial court, and the insurer remained liable under the policy. en-us Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jun 2019 15:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281088 Insurance policy interpretation turned on the insurer's own pleadings and the surrounding facts: where the written statement did not plead that "unlimited personal injury" was confined to third-party risk, but instead claimed the wording was inserted by mistake, and no evidence or amendment was produced to change that position, the High Court could not discard the trial court's factual finding and replace it with a contrary legal inference. The cover was therefore held to extend as found by the trial court, and the insurer remained liable under the policy. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281088