Insurance contracts sometimes contain ambiguities. Which of the following has not been taken to court for further interpretation?

In the context of insurance contracts, the principle of subrogation is well-established and widely understood. It involves the insurer's right to recover costs from a third party responsible for a loss after compensating the insured. Generally, this principle is clear and does not commonly lead to judicial interpretation because the mechanics and implications of subrogation are defined by law and precedent.

On the other hand, concepts like reasonable expectations, ambiguities in contracts of adhesion, and utmost good faith often require judicial clarification due to their subjective nature or potential for varying interpretations. For example, reasonable expectations protect policyholders from ambiguous terms that might confuse consumers. Similarly, ambiguities in contracts of adhesion — which are often one-sided agreements where the insured has little to no negotiation power — may lead to litigation to clarify their meaning and enforceability. Lastly, the principle of utmost good faith, which requires both parties in the insurance contract to act honestly and not mislead or withhold critical information, can also result in court cases to clarify its application.

Thus, while many aspects of insurance contracts are subject to legal interpretation and have seen significant court involvement, subrogation stands out as a principle that is largely understood and applied without the need for frequent judicial intervention.