CBA Record July-August 2025

THE YOUNG LAWYERS SECTION

tion governing catch-all provisions known by its Latin name of ejusdem generis was not applied correctly. Translated literally, that canon means “of the same kind, class or nature.” It aims to clarify a broad or general term, such as a catch-all provision, by review ing what subjects precede that term for clues as to how that term should be construed. In Illinois, when general words follow spe cific ones, courts may limit the scope of the general words to the subjects similar in nature as the specific ones. Here, the Seventh Circuit applied this canon of construction and found it limited the scope of the catch-all provision to the subject matter of the earlier-enumerated statutes. According to the Court, the first two—the TCPA and the CAN-SPAM Act—

differed from BIPA because they regulated communications. The third, FCRA, was patently different because its scope concerned how an individual’s credit history was reported to third parties. Given this interpretation, catch-all provisions that end-cap enumerated examples present a trap for the unwary drafter. Prac titioners should take care when choosing whether to include spe cific statues in a contract. The opinion also presents an interesting issue, as headers in the policy provisions played a significant role in the court’s interpretation into the scale of both exclusions. Practitioners should take note when drafting agreements to ensure that a placeholder header does not later lead to ambiguity that ends up being resolved in litigation.

CBA RECORD 37