Insurance policy interpretation followed the insurer's pleadings, with liability upheld and the contrary appellate view set aside.

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.

---

---

Issues: Whether the insurance policy covering "unlimited personal injury and property damage" for which an additional premium was paid extended to the death and bodily injury of the insured, or was confined to third party risk.

Analysis: The policy had to be read in the light of the insurer's own pleadings and the surrounding facts. The insurer's written statement did not assert that the words "unlimited personal injury" were limited to third party liability; instead, it pleaded that the words were typed by oversight or mistake. No evidence was led to displace that pleaded stand, and no amendment to the pleadings was sought. In these circumstances, the High Court was not justified in discarding the trial court's factual finding and substituting a purely legal inference contrary to the insurer's own admission.

Conclusion: The cover was held to extend in the manner found by the trial court, and the insurer was liable under the policy; the High Court's contrary view was set aside.

---