A Comparative Study of the Position and Principles of the Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations in the Interpretation of US-Iran Insurance Contracts

Any contract may face ambiguities in the execution phase that need to be interpreted. Courts usually interpret these ambiguities based on the discovery of the common intent of the parties. However, following the characteristics of the contract or the special situation of the parties in some contracts, special interpretative rules are applied to them. Therefore, the insurer may take advantage of this fragile situation of the insurer and its authoritarianism and adjust the insurance contract in line with your interests. Therefore, in order to support the legitimate expectations of the insurer and eliminate this inequality in the 1970s, a special method for interpreting insurance contracts under the "legitimate expectations method" emerged in the United States and experienced a change over several decades. Recent developments in this method indicate that the application of this rule is appropriate after proving unequal legal and economic situations. In Iranian law, this method is not directly mentioned, but in the interpretation of the contract, the courts are better instead of applying the dry rule. Interpretation against the insurer, apply this rule in line with the legitimate expectations of the insurer. In this study, we examine this doctrine and its role in the interpretation of insurance contracts.