Catch-all provisions are broad residual phrases drafters attach to the end of a specific list so that anything they didn’t think to name still gets covered. You’ve seen the language: “including but not limited to,” “or any other similar item,” “and all related matters.” They show up in contracts, statutes, regulations, and policies, and they all do the same job: plug gaps so no one escapes a rule or obligation just because a particular scenario wasn’t spelled out.
What the Language Looks Like
The mechanics are simple. A drafter lists specific items, then follows with a general phrase meant to cover everything else in the same category. A non-compete might bar a departing employee from working for “any competitor, vendor, supplier, or other entity engaged in similar business activities.” A statute might regulate “gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and any other petroleum-based fuel.” The named items give a concrete sense of what’s covered; the trailing phrase extends coverage past the list.
Three phrasings do most of the work:
- “Including but not limited to” signals that the listed items are examples, not an exhaustive inventory.
- “Or any other similar [item, event, activity]” extends coverage to unlisted things that share a family resemblance with the named ones.
- “And all related matters” casts a wide net over anything connected to the listed subjects.
“Including but not limited to” earns its own note. “Including” alone can be read as limiting a clause to the items that follow. Adding “but not limited to” removes that ambiguity. Federal tax law uses exactly this construction, defining gross income as “all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to)” a list of fifteen categories such as wages, rents, and royalties.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 U.S. Code 61 – Gross Income Defined That phrasing is one of the broadest catch-alls in American law, and it saves the IRS from needing a new statute every time a novel form of income appears.
Why Drafters Reach for Them
No one can predict every scenario. A contract written in 2020 couldn’t have specifically listed supply-chain disruptions from a global pandemic, but a well-drafted force majeure clause didn’t need to. If it already covered “war, earthquakes, epidemics, government orders, and any other event beyond the parties’ reasonable control,” the pandemic arguably fit the tail. Attempting an exhaustive list invites the very gaps the drafter is trying to avoid.
Readability matters too. A controlled-substances statute that individually named every dangerous compound would run for pages and still fall behind the next synthetic drug on the market. A catch-all lets regulators address new threats without waiting on a legislative amendment, as long as the new substance shares the characteristics of those already listed.
There’s a strategic layer as well. When one party argues that a specific obligation doesn’t apply because the relevant item wasn’t named, the catch-all gives the other side a textual foothold. The dispute shifts from “was this item listed?” to “does this item belong in the same category as the ones that were?” That second question is harder to dodge.
Where You’ll Find Them
Federal Statutes
Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code treats “all income from whatever source derived” as the rule and the fifteen listed categories as examples.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 U.S. Code 61 – Gross Income Defined If you receive something of economic value and no specific exclusion applies, it’s taxable.2Internal Revenue Service. What Is Taxable and Nontaxable Income? Cryptocurrency gains, barter transactions, and found property all get swept in despite never being named.
The Defend Trade Secrets Act defines a “trade secret” as “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information,” then lists formats like patterns, plans, compilations, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, and codes.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1839 – Definitions It caps the list with “whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized.” Form doesn’t matter, as long as the owner kept the information secret and it derives economic value from not being publicly known.
Contracts
Force majeure clauses excuse nonperformance when extraordinary events make performance impossible.4Legal Information Institute. Force Majeure A typical clause lists specific triggers (natural disasters, wars, labor disputes, government actions) and closes with “and any other event beyond the parties’ reasonable control.” Courts read force majeure provisions strictly, so if the disruptive event isn’t listed and no catch-all exists, the clause may not apply. The catch-all still won’t cover ordinary business difficulties like an economic downturn.
Indemnification clauses often use catch-all language to define the scope of covered losses: “any claims, damages, losses, costs, expenses, or other liabilities arising from” a specified event. Without the “other liabilities” tail, a party seeking coverage for an unusual harm not specifically named may have no claim.
Non-disclosure agreements follow the same pattern. A confidentiality clause might cover “customer lists, financial data, product designs, marketing strategies, and any other proprietary information.” The breadth of the catch-all decides whether information the parties never discussed falls under the agreement.
How Courts Cabin Them
Courts don’t treat catch-alls as blank checks. Two interpretive canons do most of the limiting.
Ejusdem Generis
Ejusdem generis, Latin for “of the same kind,” is the main constraint. Where a general phrase follows a list of specific items, the general phrase covers only things of the same type or class as the listed items.5Legal Information Institute. Ejusdem Generis If a lease prohibits tenants from keeping “dogs, cats, hamsters, or other animals,” a court applying ejusdem generis would likely read “other animals” as limited to household pets. Livestock and exotic wildlife wouldn’t fit the class the preceding list established. The doctrine needs at least two specific items to set a recognizable class before the catch-all can be constrained.
This is where many catch-alls fall apart in litigation. If the specific items are too varied to share a coherent category, there’s no identifiable “kind” for the general phrase to match. A provision covering “trucks, laptops, filing cabinets, or any other similar property” gives a court very little to work with, because the named items don’t belong to a single recognizable class. Any drafter who lists two or more specific items followed by a general residual term without intending the residual to be limited is asking for trouble.6Judicature. Ejusdem Generis: What Is It Good For?
Noscitur a Sociis
A related canon, noscitur a sociis (“it is known by its associates”), says an ambiguous word takes its meaning from the words around it. Ejusdem generis applies specifically to a general phrase following a list; noscitur a sociis is broader. If a regulation governs “harbors, canals, rivers, and other waterways,” the phrase “other waterways” would be read to mean navigable bodies of water similar to those already named, not every drainage ditch or decorative pond.
When They Fail
A catch-all can be struck down or read into meaninglessness in several ways.
Vagueness is the most common. If a catch-all is so broad that a reasonable person can’t tell what it covers, a court may refuse to enforce it. A criminal statute with a catch-all must give fair notice of what conduct is prohibited; a provision that sweeps in virtually everything gives no notice and may violate due process.
Overbreadth is closely related. A catch-all that extends far past the scope of the specific items risks being treated as an unreasonable overreach. A non-compete that restricts a former employee from working in “any industry or any other field of endeavor” after listing two or three specific competitors isn’t a gap-filler anymore; it’s a restraint on employment that many courts would narrow or void.
Contra proferentem is the third pressure point. Catch-alls are, by design, less precise than the specific items around them. When that imprecision creates genuine ambiguity, courts interpret the ambiguous term against the party who wrote it.7Legal Information Institute. Contra Proferentem The doctrine bites hardest in adhesion contracts, where one side presented a take-it-or-leave-it agreement. Insurance policies are the classic example: when an insurer’s catch-all in an exclusion clause could reasonably be read two ways, the policyholder typically wins. That risk has pushed insurers toward increasingly detailed, enumerated lists of covered and excluded events.
The practical takeaway for drafters is that vagueness isn’t your friend. A catch-all works best when the specific items preceding it clearly signal the category the drafter meant to cover. The more coherent the list, the less room a court has to apply contra proferentem against you.
Consumer Contracts Get an Extra Layer
Broad catch-all language in consumer contracts faces additional scrutiny. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has taken the position that including an unenforceable term in a consumer contract is itself deceptive, because it misleads consumers into believing the term is binding.8Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Unlawful and Unenforceable Contract Terms and Conditions A catch-all that purports to waive consumer rights the consumer cannot legally waive is a prime example.
Common drafting workarounds don’t cure the problem. Qualifying an overbroad catch-all with “subject to applicable law” or “except where unenforceable” doesn’t fix the misleading impression that the term applies.8Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Unlawful and Unenforceable Contract Terms and Conditions The reasoning is that a consumer who sees a broad waiver is likely to believe it’s enforceable and may never try to exercise the right it purports to eliminate. That chilling effect is the harm, regardless of whether the term would survive a legal challenge.
State unfair and deceptive trade practices laws impose similar constraints, with civil penalties that vary widely by jurisdiction. For any business drafting a consumer-facing agreement, a catch-all can’t override substantive consumer protections, and including one that tries can create liability beyond the contract itself.