Final answer:
If a contract of adhesion contains questionable language, the interpretation would typically be in favor of the insured.
Option A.
Step-by-step explanation:
If a contract of adhesion contains questionable language, the interpretation would typically be in favor of the insured.
A contract of adhesion refers to a standardized contract where one party has more bargaining power than the other, and the terms are typically prepared by the party with more power.
In these cases, courts interpret any ambiguous language or provisions in favor of the party with less power, which in this case would be the insured.
For example, if the language in an insurance contract is unclear or could be interpreted in multiple ways, the court would lean towards a interpretation that is more favorable to the insured.
This is done to protect the interests of the party who did not play a significant role in drafting the contract.
Therefore, the correct answer would be (a) The insured because the courts aim to resolve any doubts or ambiguities in favor of the party who did not have an opportunity to negotiate the terms.