Following the hijacking and destruction of a commercial aircraft by terrorists, an insurance company denied payment to the airline by asserting that the damage was caused by an "act of war," which was excluded in the policy. However, the airline argued that "acts of war" were different than "acts of terrorism", and the insurer could have included in its policy a more specific and unambiguous exclusion for "acts of terrorism" if it did not want to pay for such claims. Given the ambiguity in the wording of the "war" exclusion, the courts ruled in favor of the airline. This decision is a direct result of which of the basic characteristics of insurance contracts? the contracts are contracts of adhesion the contracts are contracts of "utmost good faith" the contracts are aleatory the contracts are conditional