When a legal document says “including but not limited to,” it is telling you that the items listed right after that phrase are examples of a larger category, not the full set of what the provision covers. A lease that requires you to pay for “utilities, including but not limited to electricity and water” also reaches gas, internet, and trash service, even though none of those are named. The listed items show you the kind of things the clause is about; they do not cap it.
What the Phrase Actually Does
“Including” by itself usually signals that the items that follow are illustrations of a broader group. “But not limited to” reinforces the point so no one can argue otherwise. A policy covering “office supplies, including but not limited to paper and pens” also covers staples, toner, and sticky notes. The named items help you see the category; they do not define its outer edge.
Federal law reflects this reading directly. The Internal Revenue Code specifies that “includes” and “including,” when used in a definition, “shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 U.S. Code 7701 – Definitions That provision governs the tax code, but courts across many areas of law apply the same approach: “including” enlarges rather than limits.
Inclusive Lists Versus Exhaustive Lists
Not every list in a legal document works this way. One or two words decide whether a list is open or closed, and that distinction changes what a clause covers.
- An inclusive list uses language like “including,” “including but not limited to,” or “such as.” The named items are examples. Unlisted items that fit the same category are still covered.
- An exhaustive list uses language like “means,” “consisting of,” “limited to,” or “only.” The named items are the complete set, and anything not on the list is out.
A contract stating that maintenance covers “structural components, meaning the roof, foundation, and load-bearing walls” limits coverage to those three. Change “meaning” to “including but not limited to” and the same sentence reaches support beams, floor joists, and other structural pieces. When you review a document, the signal word in front of a list tells you whether you are looking at broad protection or a fixed set of rights.
How Far “Not Limited To” Actually Reaches
“Not limited to” does not mean anything in the world. A long-standing interpretive rule called ejusdem generis — Latin for “of the same kind” — keeps inclusive lists tethered to the examples that appear in them. When general words follow a list of specific items, the general words only reach things of the same basic nature as the ones listed.
Take a statute that refers to “vehicles, including but not limited to cars and motorcycles.” A court applying ejusdem generis would likely find that airplanes and boats fall outside the provision, because they do not share the land-based character of the examples. The general category of “vehicles” gets read in light of the specific items that illustrate it. The U.S. Supreme Court has described the canon as the principle that general words following a list of specific items apply only to things “of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned.”
The doctrine does not override clear text. It gives courts a way to stop a party from stretching an inclusive list into territory the other side could never have anticipated. So when you read “including but not limited to,” pay attention to the examples: they set the flavor of the category, and anything unlisted has to fit that flavor to be covered.
Why Drafters Bother Adding “But Not Limited To”
A related rule works the other direction. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — “mentioning one thing excludes others” — creates a presumption that if a document lists specific items without any inclusive signal, anything left off was intentionally excluded. The U.S. Supreme Court has called this maxim “a rule of construction, and not of substantive law,” meaning it helps interpret ambiguous text rather than overriding clear language.2Justia. United States v Barnes, 222 US 513 (1912)
That is exactly why drafters add “but not limited to.” Without it, a detailed list could trigger expressio unius and let the other side argue the unlisted items were deliberately omitted. The phrase blocks that argument before it starts. If you see a document where some clauses use “including but not limited to” and other clauses just list items with no inclusive signal, treat the inconsistency as a flag. The shorter lists may have been meant to be exhaustive, and you want to know that before you sign.
How Courts Read the Phrase in a Dispute
When a disagreement comes down to whether an unlisted item falls inside an inclusive list, courts usually start with the four corners doctrine: the meaning of the document comes from the document itself rather than from outside evidence like negotiation emails or oral discussions. A judge reads the inclusive list in the context of the rest of the agreement and asks whether the disputed item logically fits the category the list was meant to illustrate.
Context then does a lot of the work. Ambiguities are generally read against the party that drafted the document, so the same phrase can be interpreted more narrowly in one place than another depending on who benefits from a broad reading. If the contract’s purpose clearly centers on one type of activity, a court is unlikely to stretch an inclusive list to cover something unrelated, even if the literal words could reach it. The phrase gives flexibility, but the flexibility stays tied to the bargain the parties actually made.
What to Check When You See It in a Document
A few habits will help you read “including but not limited to” the way a court would.
- Read the listed examples closely. Under ejusdem generis, anything unlisted needs to share the character of the items that are named. The examples tell you what the drafter had in mind.
- Focus on the general term, not just the list. In “damages, including but not limited to lost profits and repair costs,” the operative word is “damages.” Ask what else could reasonably count as damages in this contract.
- Check for consistency across the document. If some sections use the phrase and others just list items with no inclusive language, the shorter lists may be meant as closed sets. Raise the question before you sign.
- Watch for exhaustive signal words nearby. “Means,” “limited to,” and “only” override the openness of “including.” One word can turn a flexible provision into a locked one.
- Think about how the phrase could be used against you. If you are taking on an obligation that applies to a category “including but not limited to” certain items, consider what else might later fit that category. If the scope feels too wide, negotiate for narrower wording or a defined cap.
The phrase is one of the most common pieces of legal language you will run into, and its job is simple: give examples without closing the door on similar items. The door stays open, but ejusdem generis, the purpose of the contract, and the words around the list all keep it from swinging so wide that anything can walk through.