In a contract of adhesion, disputes are typically resolved in favor of?

In a contract of adhesion, disputes are generally resolved in favor of the insured. Contracts of adhesion are agreements in which one party, typically the insurer or a business, has significantly more bargaining power than the other party, who is often an individual consumer. This imbalance means that the terms of the contract are usually set by the stronger party, leaving the weaker party with little to no room for negotiation.

When disputes arise regarding the interpretation of the contract, courts often apply the principle of "contra proferentem," which means that any ambiguous terms in the contract are interpreted against the interests of the party that drafted the contract. Therefore, if a dispute occurs, it is common for courts to favor the insured, ensuring that the weaker party is not unfairly disadvantaged by vague language or unclear conditions set forth in the contract. This practice helps to maintain fairness and protect consumers in situations where they might otherwise be at a disadvantage due to the contractual imbalance.