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

In a contract of adhesion, which is typically a type of insurance contract, the terms are written by one party (the insurer) and presented to the other party (the insured) on a "take it or leave it" basis, meaning the insured has little to no ability to negotiate the terms. Courts generally interpret any ambiguous or complicated language in favor of the party that did not draft the contract, which, in the context of insurance, is the insured.

This principle is rooted in the concept of "contra proferentem," which dictates that if a contract is unclear or ambiguous, the interpretation that is most favorable to the non-drafting party should be adopted. This serves to protect consumers in the insurance market by ensuring that the burden of ambiguous terms does not fall unfairly on them. Thus, if the language in the contract is complicated, it is interpreted in favor of the insured, aligning with the aim of providing fairness and transparency within the insurance framework.