If a contract of adhesion contains complicated language, to whom is the interpretation typically in favor?

In a contract of adhesion, which is commonly associated with insurance policies, the interpretation of any ambiguous or complicated language is typically favored in favor of the insured. This principle is rooted in the idea that insurance contracts are often drafted by the insurer, placing the insured at a disadvantage in terms of negotiating terms and understanding the nuanced legal language used.

The rationale is simple: because the insurer is the party that creates the contract and has greater control over its terms, any ambiguity should be construed against the insurer. This protection for the insured aims to ensure that they are not unfairly taken advantage of due to complicated jargon or unclear provisions. It reflects the broader legal principle of protecting consumers and recognizing the power imbalance in such contracts. Thus, when faced with uncertain or unclear terms, courts will generally interpret those terms in a manner that favors the insured, promoting fairness and transparency in the contractual relationship.