A claimant who argued his stolen motorbike should be covered under his home and contents policy has lost a dispute that centred on an insurance document’s use of punctuation.

Sure Insurance acknowledged the bike was taken from the home but said it was excluded because it was a registered vehicle and had compulsory third party insurance.

Its contents policy document specified it covered “e-bikes, e-scooters, motorbikes, motorised scooters, motorised trikes, trail bikes, mini-bikes, quad bikes, motorised go karts and all-terrain vehicles up to 250cc that do not require registration or compulsory third-party insurance”.

The owner argued this wording implied the registration and insurance requirements applied only to ATVs.

He said the way the list was structured, with the items separated by commas and ending with a specific condition, meant the clause “that do not require ...” applied only to the last item.

But in a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority says that under a “plain English interpretation” the clause applied to all listed items.

Related article: Train passenger right to leave bag unattended, AFCA finds

It notes there was no clear reason the insurer would distinguish ATVs from the other vehicles.

“If the intention was to restrict the registration requirement to ATVs, there would have been a comma after the words ‘motorised go karts’ to show the restriction only applies to ATVs,” the ombudsman said. “The absence of the comma shows the insurer intended the restriction to apply to all the items listed before it.”

AFCA says the exclusion is in place because vehicles that require registration are typically covered by motor insurance.

The PDS also stated separately that motor vehicles were not considered contents.

The complainant suggested this statement and the earlier one contradicted each other, but AFCA said: “As noted ... a plain English reading of the policy excludes motorbikes that require CTP insurance and registration. This is consistent with the next paragraph, which specifically excludes cover for motor vehicles.”

The insurer was entitled to deny the claim, AFCA says. See the ruling here.