How are ambiguities in a contract of adhesion typically interpreted by the courts?

In the context of contracts of adhesion, which are typically drafted by one party (usually the insurer) and presented to the other party (the insured) on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, ambiguities within these contracts are generally interpreted in favor of the insured. This principle is based on the understanding that the insured typically has less bargaining power and may not fully understand all the terms and legal jargon present in the contract.

Courts apply this interpretation to protect the weaker party from unfair practices and ensure that the insured is not unfairly disadvantaged by unclear language. When an ambiguity exists, it is the intent to uphold fairness by resolving any doubts in a manner that benefits the insured. This practice emphasizes consumer protection and encourages insurers to write clearer and more understandable policies. Thus, the interpretation of ambiguities in contracts of adhesion serves as a safeguard for consumers, ensuring that they are granted the benefits they reasonably believed they were purchasing.