Category: Insurance definitions · Reviewed by Mark Fox, Broker · Renewals · Last reviewed May 2026
The ejusdem generis rule (“of the same kind”) is a canon of construction under which general words following a list of specific items are read as limited to things of the same class as the specifics. In PI insurance, the rule routinely shapes how broad catch-all phrases at the end of exclusions and definitions are interpreted.
The Latin phrase translates as “of the same kind”. The rule applies when a clause lists specific items and ends with a generalisation such as “or other …”, “or similar”, “or any other event”. Without the rule, the generalisation could be read at large — capturing anything at all. With the rule, the generalisation is contained to the class of items the specifics established.
The rule is a tool, not an absolute. It engages where: - The clause lists two or more specifics. - The specifics share an identifiable common class or characteristic. - The general words follow the specifics and can sensibly be read in the light of them.
Where the specifics are too disparate to identify a class, or where the wording makes plain that the general words are meant at large, the rule does not engage and the general words operate broadly.
In PI wordings, the rule is most commonly invoked in exclusion clauses, definitions of “claim” or “circumstance”, and territorial scope language.
Three steps are typical.
Identify the genus. Look at the specifics — what do they have in common? Are they all physical perils? Are they all financial losses? Are they all unlawful acts? The class identified by the specifics is the genus.
Test the general words. The general words at the end are then read as limited to other items within that genus. “Fire, flood, explosion or other event” likely means “or other physical perils of a similar kind”. It does not mean “or any event whatsoever”.
Check for context that displaces the rule. Some wordings make explicit that the general words are meant at large — “including but not limited to” or “any event of whatever nature” signal that the rule does not apply. The court reads the clause in context to see whether the parties intended the rule to operate or not.
The rule’s strength in PI is that exclusions limited by ejusdem generis tend to be narrower than they look at first glance. The rule’s weakness is that it engages only where the specifics identify a clear class.
A PI policy exclusion reads:
“This policy does not cover any claim arising from war, civil war, invasion, insurrection, terrorism, riot, civil commotion or other similar acts of political or social violence.”
A claim arises against a UK consultancy advising on a project in a country experiencing extensive industrial action and labour unrest. A strike turns into rioting; property is damaged; the client sues the consultancy for advising the project to proceed.
Application of ejusdem generis:
Now consider a different wording:
“This policy does not cover any claim arising from war, civil war, invasion, insurrection, terrorism or other event.”
Without the limiting “similar” or “of like kind”, the question is whether “other event” picks up the genus or is meant at large. Ejusdem generis would normally read “other event” as another political-violence event. Without a qualifier — “of any kind whatsoever” — the rule should engage to limit the catch-all.
Now consider an aggressive reading: an economic loss claim is brought against the consultancy, alleging that the firm’s strategic advice exposed the client to currency risk. The insurer points to “or other event” to deny cover. Ejusdem generis is the policyholder’s strongest argument: an FX exposure is not a political-violence event of the kind listed. The exclusion should not bite.
The case-by-case nature of the rule means the wording detail decides outcomes.
Three contexts make ejusdem generis particularly relevant in PI:
Catch-all exclusions. Exclusions ending with broad catch-alls are common targets for the rule. Insurers may resist application; policyholders argue the rule restrains broad reads.
Definition catch-alls. Definitions of “claim” or “circumstance” that list types and end with “or other matter” may be limited by the rule.
Drafting design. Insurers wishing to avoid the rule will use express language (“including without limitation”, “of any nature whatsoever”, “regardless of similarity”) to signal that the general words are meant at large.
Several related interpretive canons sit close to ejusdem generis:
What is the ejusdem generis rule?
A canon of construction under which general words following a list of specific items are read as limited to things of the same class as the specifics.
Why does it matter for PI insurance?
Because PI wordings often contain catch-all exclusions and definitions ending with broad general words. The rule contains them to the genus established by the specifics, which can be the difference between cover and no cover.
When does the rule not apply?
When the specifics do not identify a clear class, or when express wording shows the general words are meant at large (“including without limitation”, “of any kind whatsoever”).
Does the rule favour the policyholder?
In practice, in PI exclusions, yes more often than not, because the rule narrows broad exclusions. But it operates in both directions and can equally narrow broad cover provisions.
Is the rule absolute?
No. It is a guide. Courts apply it where it helps and decline to apply it where it would produce an absurd result or where express drafting displaces it.
Can insurers draft around the rule?
Yes. Express wording such as “including but not limited to” or “of any nature whatsoever” signals the rule should not apply. Disciplined insurer drafting reduces ejusdem generis exposure.
Does the rule apply to definitions?
Yes. Definitions of “claim”, “circumstance” or “loss” that end with catch-all general words may be limited by the rule.
Is the rule unique to insurance?
No. It is a general principle of statutory and contract construction in English law. It applies anywhere general words follow a list of specifics.
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "PI ejusdem generis rule explained: how general words after a list are construed",
"description": "The ejusdem generis rule construes general words after a list of specifics as limited to things of the same class. How it shapes PI policy reading.",
"author": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd",
"url": "https://www.apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/"
},
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd"
},
"datePublished": "2026-05-30",
"dateModified": "2026-05-30",
"inLanguage": "en-GB"
}
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"name": "PI ejusdem generis rule",
"description": "A canon of construction under which general words following a list of specific items in a PI policy are read as limited to things of the same class as the specifics.",
"inDefinedTermSet": {
"@type": "DefinedTermSet",
"name": "Apex Insurance Brokers Glossary",
"url": "https://www.apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/glossary/"
}
}
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "FAQPage",
"mainEntity": [
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "What is the ejusdem generis rule?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "A canon of construction under which general words following a list of specific items are read as limited to things of the same class as the specifics."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Why does it matter for PI insurance?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Because PI wordings often contain catch-all exclusions and definitions ending with broad general words. The rule contains them to the genus established by the specifics."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "When does the rule not apply?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "When the specifics do not identify a clear class, or when express wording shows the general words are meant at large."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Does the rule favour the policyholder?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "In practice, in PI exclusions, more often than not, because it narrows broad exclusions. But it operates in both directions."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Is the rule absolute?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "No. It is a guide. Courts apply it where it helps and decline where it would produce an absurd result or where express drafting displaces it."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Can insurers draft around the rule?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Yes. Express wording such as \"including but not limited to\" or \"of any nature whatsoever\" signals the rule should not apply."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Does the rule apply to definitions?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Yes. Definitions ending with catch-all general words may be limited by the rule."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Is the rule unique to insurance?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "No. It is a general principle of statutory and contract construction in English law applicable wherever general words follow a list of specifics."
}
}
]
}
Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd is a Bristol-based insurance broker authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (firm reference number 724952). The company is registered in England and Wales under Companies House number 07014570. Contact: info@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk | 0117 325 0027.
Last reviewed: May 2026 by Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd.
Important: this article is general information, not advice on your specific circumstances. For advice on PI insurance for your firm, contact us on 0117 325 0027 or info@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk.
Apex Insurance Brokers serves UK professional services firms and commercial businesses. Call 0117 325 0027, email hello@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, or request a quotation.
Get a quote