Because an insurance policy is a contract of 'adhesion,' California courts will generally interpret ambiguous language in the policy:

Explanation

A 'contract of adhesion' is a take-it-or-leave-it contract drafted entirely by one party (the insurer) and presented to the other (the insured) without meaningful opportunity to negotiate. Because the insured had no role in drafting, California courts apply the doctrine of contra proferentem: ambiguities are construed AGAINST the drafter (the insurer) and IN FAVOR of coverage for the insured. This rule motivates insurers to draft clearly. Construing ambiguity against the insured for not having read the whole policy carefully reverses the rule. Reading the policy strictly by dictionary definition while ignoring the parties' intent ignores how California courts actually interpret insurance contracts — they look at the reasonable expectations of the insured in context. And limiting interpretation to whatever the Insurance Commissioner specifies in filed regulations and bulletins is wrong too: courts apply the contra proferentem doctrine independently of the Commissioner's regulations, though both reinforce policyholder protection.