How are ambiguities in a contract of adhesion typically resolved in court?

Ambiguities in a contract of adhesion are typically resolved in favor of the insured due to the underlying principles of contract law and consumer protection. A contract of adhesion is a standard form contract offered by one party (usually a more powerful one, like an insurer) to another party (the insured) on a "take it or leave it" basis, without the opportunity for negotiation.

When courts encounter ambiguities within these contracts, they tend to interpret unclear provisions in a way that benefits the weaker party—the insured. This approach is rooted in the notion that the insurer, as the drafter of the contract, has greater control over its terms and therefore should bear the consequences of any ambiguous language. By favoring the insured, courts aim to promote fairness and protect consumers from being disadvantaged by obscure or complex contractual language that they may not fully understand.

Other responses, while they have their contexts, do not align with the principle guiding the resolution of ambiguities in contracts of adhesion. Courts generally do not favor the insurer when there is ambiguity, and while state law provides a framework for contracts, the specific resolution principle is focused on protecting the insured's interests. Equitable principles might inform some decisions in broader contexts, but the specific focus here is on the protection of