A catch-all clause is a broad phrase placed at the end of a specific list in a legal document to sweep in anything the drafter didn’t name. It exists because no list can anticipate every future situation, and it fails or succeeds based on how a court decides to read it. Courts rarely give these clauses their full literal breadth; instead, they use the specific items in front of the clause to decide what the general language actually covers.
The clause goes by different names in different documents. In contracts, you’ll see “omnibus clause” or “general clause.” In wills, it’s the “residuary clause.” In statutes, it’s often just the trailing general phrase after an enumeration. The function is the same across all of them: catch what the list missed.
The Phrases Drafters Actually Use
Catch-all language follows a few recognizable patterns, and the choice among them matters because each one signals a different scope.
- “Including, but not limited to” is the most common formulation in American drafting. It tells the reader the preceding list is illustrative, not exhaustive.
- “And all other similar items” ties the catch-all back to the character of the listed items and narrows its reach to things of the same general type.
- “Any other matter related thereto” is broader, extending to anything connected to the subject even if not similar in kind.
- “Or otherwise” is the shortest and most aggressive, and the most likely to invite a fight over scope.
A drafter who picks “all other similar items” is inviting a court to compare any unlisted thing against the specific list. A drafter who picks “any other matter related thereto” is asking for wider reach. The wrong pick can leave a clause too narrow to do its job, or so broad that a court will narrow it anyway.
Where You’ll Find Them
Contracts
In commercial agreements, catch-all clauses appear in scope-of-work sections, events of default, indemnification provisions, and force majeure clauses. A default provision might list failure to pay, bankruptcy, and material misrepresentation, then close with “or any other material breach of this agreement.” A force majeure clause typically lists specific disasters and ends with “or any other event beyond the reasonable control of the parties.” The specific list and the trailing phrase work together; neither carries the clause alone.
Wills
In a will, the catch-all is the residuary clause. After the testator makes specific bequests, the residuary clause directs where everything else goes, often in language like “I leave my remaining property, of whatever kind and wherever located, to my spouse.” Without it, any asset not specifically named passes through intestacy as if there were no will at all. The residuary clause also catches gifts that fail because a named beneficiary died first and no alternate was designated. This is where most everyday estate plans quietly succeed or fail.
Federal Tax Law
One of the most consequential catch-all provisions in American law sits in the federal definition of gross income. The statute lists 14 specific categories, from wages to pension payments, but opens with “all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to)” those categories.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 U.S. Code 61 – Gross Income Defined That phrasing is the IRS’s catch-all. Income you receive doesn’t have to fit neatly into one of the 14 listed categories to be taxable; barter income, cryptocurrency gains, and prizes fall under the catch-all even though none is specifically listed.
Auto Insurance
In auto insurance, the omnibus clause extends coverage beyond the person named on the policy to anyone driving the insured vehicle with the policyholder’s permission. That’s what determines whether your policy covers a friend who borrows your car and causes an accident. Courts generally recognize express permission, implied permission based on past patterns, and conditional permission that comes with restrictions.
How Courts Decide What a Catch-All Covers
The whole point of a catch-all is breadth, but courts don’t let that breadth run unchecked. A few interpretive doctrines do most of the work.
Ejusdem Generis
The most important doctrine is ejusdem generis, which translates roughly to “of the same kind.” When a general phrase follows a list of specific items, the general language covers only things that belong to the same class as the items on the list.2Legal Information Institute. Ejusdem Generis If a rule prohibits “firearms, knives, explosives, and other dangerous weapons,” the catch-all covers things like brass knuckles but probably not a vial of poison, because poison isn’t the same class of handheld combat weapon.
The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in Yates v. United States (2015). A fisherman was charged under a federal statute making it a crime to destroy “any record, document, or tangible object” to obstruct an investigation. He had thrown undersized fish overboard to avoid a citation. The government argued the fish were “tangible objects.” The Court disagreed, holding that because the catch-all “tangible object” followed “record” and “document,” it covered only objects used to record or preserve information.3LII / Legal Information Institute. Yates v United States The fish didn’t qualify. It’s the clearest illustration of how ejusdem generis keeps catch-all language from swallowing the rest of a statute.
Noscitur a Sociis
Closely related is noscitur a sociis, meaning “it is known by its associates.” Where ejusdem generis focuses on the relationship between a general term and the specific list before it, noscitur a sociis looks at surrounding words more broadly to shade the meaning of any ambiguous term. Words take meaning from the company they keep.4Virginia Law Review. The Association Game: Applying Noscitur a Sociis and Ejusdem Generis In Yates, the Court leaned on both doctrines: the statute’s verbs included “falsifies” and “makes a false entry in,” which only make sense for records and documents, confirming that “tangible object” meant information-storing items.3LII / Legal Information Institute. Yates v United States
The Doctrine That Pushes the Other Way
Working against catch-all language is expressio unius est exclusio alterius: “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.” Under this principle, when a document specifically lists certain items, the absence of other items implies they were deliberately left out. A catch-all clause exists to defeat that inference. By adding “and any other similar items” after a list, the drafter signals the list is illustrative, not complete. If the catch-all language is weak or missing, courts can apply expressio unius to hold the list is exhaustive and nothing else qualifies. The tension between these two principles is one of the core battlegrounds in contract and statutory interpretation.
Rule of Lenity in Criminal Statutes
Catch-all clauses in criminal laws face an extra constraint. When a criminal statute is genuinely ambiguous, courts resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. That means catch-all language in a penal statute is read more narrowly than identical language in a civil contract. Yates reflects that principle; the Court was unwilling to let vague catch-all language expand criminal liability beyond what a reasonable reader would expect.
What This Means If You’re Drafting or Reading One
A catch-all clause is only as good as its context. Courts don’t read these provisions in isolation; they use the specific items that precede the general language to calibrate how far the clause reaches. The preceding list does double duty: it covers named items explicitly and defines the universe of unnamed items implicitly. A sloppy or inconsistent list can quietly narrow or misdirect the catch-all.
If you’re negotiating a contract, check whether the specific list in front of the catch-all actually reflects the kinds of things you want captured. A force majeure clause listing “hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes” followed by “or any other similar event” will likely be read to cover natural disasters only. If you want coverage for labor strikes or government shutdowns, either put them in the specific list or use broader catch-all language like “or any event beyond the parties’ reasonable control.” The specific items set the floor; the catch-all language sets the ceiling.
The same logic applies to wills. A residuary clause saying “all my remaining personal property” may not capture real estate, because “personal property” is a legal term that excludes land. Broader language like “all property of whatever kind” avoids that trap. These details feel technical during drafting and get expensive when a court has to decide what the words actually meant.