Which party to the insurance contract will a proposed clause be construed against in the event of ambiguity, when added by a broker for a commercial policyholder?

In contract law, particularly within the context of insurance contracts, ambiguity in the language of a clause typically leads to a principle known as "contra proferentem." This principle dictates that any ambiguous wording in a contract is generally interpreted against the interests of the party that drafted the clause or added it to the contract.

In this case, if a clause was added by a broker on behalf of the commercial policyholder, the interpretation of that clause will typically favor the policyholder. The rationale is based on the assumption that the broker, who acts as an agent for the policyholder, is endorsing the intentions and understanding of the commercial policyholder when incorporating such clauses. Therefore, should any ambiguities arise, those would be construed in favor of the policyholder to uphold their interests and expectations in the insurance agreement.

The other parties mentioned, such as the insurer and the broker, would not be viewed in the same light when interpreting ambiguities introduced by the broker on behalf of the policyholder. The insurer is typically not the party that drafted the clause under consideration, and the broker's role is to facilitate and represent the policyholder's needs. The United States Government is not directly involved in the contractual relationship between the broker, policyholder, and insurer