A utility terrain vehicle owner has been denied a theft claim payout even though his contents policy stated it covered “a golf cart or buggy”.

In a dispute ruling, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority accepts a UTV is a buggy, but it disagrees that the claimant’s policy should respond.

It says while the policy phrasing “is not perfectly drafted and creates some ambiguity”, insurer Suncorp’s interpretation that it covered golf buggies – not all buggies – is reasonable.

The policy stated cover applied to “a golf cart or buggy, wheelchairs, mobility scooters, or medical aids”.

“I am satisfied the comma after ‘buggy’ supports the interpretation of ‘golf cart or buggy’ as a single category,” an AFCA member said.

“I acknowledge the policy could have referred to ‘golf carts, golf buggies, wheelchairs’ if this is what the insurer intended. However, the use of ‘or’ between cart and buggy and buggy being singular rather than plural support reading ‘golf cart or buggy’ together.

More from AFCA: Airline passenger’s broken laptop claim won’t fly

“A reasonable person reading the policy as a whole would most likely understand the phrase to refer to the golf-related vehicles.”

AFCA says if Suncorp intended to cover all buggies, it would have listed them separately: golf carts, buggies, wheelchairs.

The insured lodged his theft claim last November, and Suncorp partially accepted it but rejected the UTV loss.

Suncorp said “golf cart or buggy” was intended to describe a low-speed, motorised vehicle used on golf courses, and the use of “or” did not create two separate categories.

The policyholder argued the wording did not impose restrictions based on size, power or classification and used two separate terms connected by “or”. If both were intended to mean the same thing, one would be unnecessary.

A more natural reading was that “buggy” meant a broader category of vehicle, he said.

But AFCA says the policy “is covering limited categories of low-speed or special-purpose vehicles, not a broad range of motor vehicles”.

“Reading ‘buggy’ as a standalone category would significantly expand the exception because the term could include many off-road, recreational and utility vehicles.”

The policyholder sought refund of a $5000 excess, saying he accepted settlement on the other stolen items on the understanding the vehicle would be covered. But AFCA says the accepted contents’ value exceeds the excess and nothing warrants it being waived.

See the ruling here.

---

From the latest Insurance News magazine: Car thefts are down almost across the board in Australia. So how is outlier Victoria getting it so wrong?

---