In legal disputes, which statement is true regarding the Doctrine of Adhesion?

The Doctrine of Adhesion is a legal principle applied to contracts, particularly in the context of insurance. It states that when a contract is presented on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis, any ambiguous or unclear terms within the contract are interpreted in favor of the party that did not draft the document. In the case of insurance policies, which are typically standardized and created by insurers, this means that if a term is vague or ambiguous, the court will typically rule in favor of the insured, or policyholder.

This is grounded in the belief that the insured is at a disadvantage due to the unequal bargaining power often present in insurance agreements. Therefore, if there is any uncertainty in the language of the policy, the benefit of that uncertainty goes to the policyholder, affording them better protection under the contractual agreement.

The other options present interpretations that do not align with the principles of the Doctrine of Adhesion. For instance, the notion that all unclear terms favor the insurance company contradicts the Doctrine itself, which is designed to protect the insured. Similarly, the idea that clear language is interpreted in favor of the insurer overlooks the essential principle that clarity should benefit the drafter, and asserting claims based on incomplete policies reflects a misunderstanding of how courts view