family member during the policy period and is: a. A private passenger auto, pickup, or van; .... (Gompl., Ex. A, Insurance Policy, EOF No. 5, at 9, 18, 43.) Although these examples do not state what a private passenger auto is, the combination of commas and the disjunctive “or” indicates what it is not—a pickup truck, among other things. Nothing in the policy suggests Garrison and Cothran intended for this distinction to disappear in exclusion A,7’s exception sentence. To the contrary, that sentence maintains the distinction, separating the terms with semicolons and using “or” to signal those terms’ juxtaposition. Thus, “private passenger auto” in exclusion A.7 unambiguously does not include pickup trucks. Cf. Home Indem. Co. v. Nw. Nat. Ins. Co., 280 F.Supp. 446, 448 (D. Mont. 1968) (<HOLDING>). Despite those provisions, Rickborn maintains
holding pickup truck was not a private passenger automobile under policy although that term standing alone might be  ambiguous there was no room for misunderstanding whether it included pickups because separate defined policy term included pickups holding that there can be no implied contractual term at variance with an express term of a contract recognizing that certainly under many circumstances a pickup truck is used by its owner as a private passenger automobile but nonetheless holding that policy read as a whole unambiguously excluded pickups from that term holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance holding that although term was not limited by the specification it was expressly defined in a narrow manner in the prosecution history