If a contract of adhesion contains questionable language, to whom would the interpretation be in favor of?

In the case of a contract of adhesion, which is a standard-form agreement created by one party (often the insurer) and presented to another party (the policyholder) on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, the interpretation of any ambiguous or questionable language is typically resolved in favor of the policyholder. This principle is rooted in the notion that the insurer, as the party that drafted the contract, is in a better position to define its terms and conditions.

When there is ambiguity, courts tend to favor the policyholder to uphold the principle of fairness and protect consumers from potential exploitation. This legal doctrine reinforces the idea that any uncertainties should not disadvantage the party who had no role in creating the language of the contract. Thus, if a policyholder finds the contract language to be unclear or misleading, they would generally benefit from an interpretation that favors their interests.