Because an insurance policy is a contract of adhesion, ambiguities in the policy language are construed:
- A.Against the insurer that drafted the contractCorrect. The drafter bears the risk of unclear language.
- B.According to the producer's oral explanation at saleWrong. The written contract, interpreted against the drafter, controls.
- C.Against the insured who accepted the contractWrong. The non-drafting party receives the benefit of the doubt.
- D.By splitting the difference between the partiesWrong. Courts do not compromise meanings; they favor the insured.
Why: Since the insurer drafts the policy and the insured cannot negotiate terms, any ambiguous language is interpreted in favor of the insured and against the drafter. Citation: contra proferentem doctrine in insurance contract law. Takeaway: ambiguity favors the insured.
An aviation exclusion in Ottilie Marchetti's late husband's policy states that no benefit is payable for death occurring while the insured is "operating, or acting as a crew member of, any aircraft not licensed for the transportation of passengers." He died piloting his own experimental homebuilt airplane. Ottilie argues that because insurers write the words, every dispute must be resolved in her favor. How is a court most likely to rule?
- A.For the beneficiary, because a contract of adhesion is construed against the insurer no matter how clear the wording is.This states the doctrine without its precondition. Adhesion resolves ambiguity; it does not license a court to rewrite unambiguous language.
- B.For the insurer, but only if it can also prove the insured intended to conceal his flying at application.Concealment is a separate rescission theory with its own proof burden. An exclusion operates on its own terms and needs no showing of intent.
- C.For the beneficiary, because aviation exclusions are unenforceable unless a separate aviation questionnaire was signed.No such requirement exists. A questionnaire is an underwriting tool, not a condition of an exclusion's enforceability.
- D.For the insurer, because construing language against the drafter resolves genuine ambiguity and this exclusion has only one reasonable reading.Correct. The doctrine is triggered by ambiguity. A defined exclusion that plainly captures the facts is enforced as written.
Why: Contra proferentem - construing wording against its drafter - is a tie-breaker that operates only when language is genuinely AMBIGUOUS, meaning two reasonable readings exist. Where the policy defines the excluded activity in terms that admit of only one sensible reading, the court applies the plain meaning and enforces the exclusion. Adhesion status gets the policyholder the benefit of doubt, not the benefit of certainty.