SWEET BERRY CAFÉ, INC., Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellant, v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, INC., Defendant and Counterplaintiff-Appellee.
No. 2-21-0088
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
March 15, 2022
2022 IL App (2d) 210088
JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justice Brennan concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice McLaren specially concurred, with opinion.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County. No. 20-CH-266. Honorable Kevin T. Busch, Judge, Presiding.
¶ 1 In this insurance coverage case, plaintiff, Sweet Berry Café, Inc. (Café), sought a declaration that its commercial property insurance policy with defendant, Society Insurance, Inc. (Society), covered business income losses it suffered due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Governor‘s executive orders, which restricted in-person dining, but not carryout or delivery services, at restaurants and similar establishments. The trial court entered judgment on the pleadings (
I. BACKGROUND
A. Complaint Allegations
¶ 4 On May 27, 2020, Café, located in South Elgin, filed a declaratory-judgment complaint (
¶ 5 The complaint noted that, after the World Health Organization characterized the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic, the Governor, Jay Robert Pritzker, issued Executive Order 2020-7 on March 16, 2020, whose goal was to slow the spread of the virus by minimizing in-person interaction in an environment with “frequently used services in public settings, including bars and restaurants,” stating that the reduction of on-premises consumption of food and beverages was warranted. Exec. Order No. 2020-7, 44 Ill. Reg. 5536 (Mar. 16, 2020), https://www.illinois.gov/government/executive-orders/executive-order.executive-order-number-
B. Society‘s Policy
¶ 8 Society‘s policy (No. BP18040353-5, for the policy period from December 31, 2019, through December 31, 2020) includes forms published by Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO), and used in the insurance industry. The policy does not include the ISO standard virus exclusion form or otherwise reference the word “virus,” other than in reference to a computer virus, and it contains no reference to “pandemic.”
¶ 9 In the “Business Owners Special Property Coverage Form,” the policy states:
“A. Coverage
We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of loss.
* * *
3. Covered Causes of Loss
Direct Physical Loss3 unless the loss is excluded or limited under this coverage form.” (Emphases added.)
¶ 10 The policy also contains certain “Additional Coverages,” which are the focus of this appeal, including for “Business income“:
“5. Additional Coverages
* * *
g. Business Income
(1) Business Income
(a) We will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain due to the necessary suspension of your ‘operations’ during the ‘period of restoration[.’ ] The suspension must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to covered property at the described premises. The loss or damage must be caused by or result from a Covered Cause of Loss
* * *(b) We will only pay for loss of Business Income that you sustain during the ‘period of restoration’ and that occurs within 12 consecutive months after the date of direct physical loss or dаmage.” (Emphasis added.)
¶ 11 Another additional coverage is for “Extra Expense“:
“h. Extra Expense
(1) We will pay necessary Extra Expense you incur during the ‘period of restoration’ that you would not have incurred if there had been no direct physical loss or damage to covered property at the described premises. The loss or damage must be caused by or result from a Covered Cause of Loss.” (Emphasis added.)
¶ 12 The “Exclusions” section of the property coverage form contains the “Ordinance or Law” exclusion:
“B. Exclusions
1. We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. These exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.
a. Ordinance or Law
The enforcement of or compliance with any ordinance or law:
(1) Regulating the construction, use or repair of any property; or
(2) Requiring the tearing down of any property, including the cost of removing its debris.
This exclusion, Ordinance Or Law, applies whether the loss results from:
(1) An ordinance or law that is enforced even if the property has not been damaged; or
(2) The increased costs incurred to comply with an ordinance or law in the course of construction, repair, renovation,
remodeling or demolition of property or removal of its debris, following a physical loss to that property.” (Emphases added.)
¶ 13 Finally, the “Property definitions” section states:
“H. Property Definitions
* * *
12. ‘Period of restoration’ means the period of time that:
a. Begins immediately after the time of direct physical loss or damage for Business Income or Extra Expense coverage caused by or resulting from any covered Cause of Loss at the described premises; and
b. Ends on the earlier of:
(1) The date when the property at the described premises should be repaired, rebuilt or replaced with reasonable speed and similar quality; or
(2) The date when business is resumed at a new permanent location.
‘Period of restoration’ includes any increased period required to repair or reconstruct the property to comply with the minimum standard of, or compliance with any ordinance or law, in force at thе time of loss, that regulates the construction or repair, or requires the tearing down of property.
The expiration date of this policy will not cut short the ‘period of restoration[.’ ] ” (Emphasis added.)
C. Society‘s Countercomplaint
¶ 15 Society filed a countercomplaint for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that Café‘s alleged loss of business income was not caused by a covered cause of loss; Café had not sustained a “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property“; the policy did not cover the
D. Society‘s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
¶ 17 On October 23, 2020, Society also moved for judgment on the pleadings (
¶ 18 Specifically, as to the business income or extra expense additional coverages, Society argued that there was no coverage because (1) “physical” loss is one that causes a change in the physical characteristics of the covered property, not an intangible loss such as diminution in value; (2) the partial temporary limitation of Café‘s operations imposed by the executive orders was not a “physical loss” or “damage” as a matter of law and was similar to a change in zoning that alters the hours a business can be open or a reduction of building capacity, not a physical alteration in the property; (3) the actual or suspected presence of the virus on the property did not cause a “direct physical loss” or “damage” and was not a covered cause of loss because it did not physically alter the property or render the premises unsafe, the virus could be removed with cleaning agents, and Cаfé‘s losses were, at most, economic, not a “direct physical loss” or “damage“; and (4) the period-
¶ 19 Society also argued that the ordinance or law exclusion prevented coverage for Café‘s claim. It argued that, even if Café could establish coverage, its claim was barred by this exclusion, which excluded losses caused by ordinances or laws that regulate the use of any property.
¶ 20 Society sought judgment in its favor and against Café as to Society‘s counterclaim and Café‘s complaint.
E. Trial Court‘s Ruling
¶ 22 On February 4, 2021, the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in Society‘s favor and against Café, finding no coverage. The court noted that the policy provided covеrage arising from a “direct physical loss of” property and “damage” to property. Regarding “direct physical loss,” the court noted that the dictionary definition of “loss” was “the act of losing possession” and deprivation. Deprivation, in turn, means the “state of being kept from possessing, enjoying, or using something.” The court determined that the loss of the use of property is a covered loss and, had Society intended a different meaning, it could have defined the terms. The court found the term “direct physical loss” to be unambiguous.
¶ 23 Further, the court noted that it would reach the same conclusion considering the type of policy, the nature of the risks involved, and the overall purpose of the contract. It characterized the policy as an all-risk policy that covered “direct physical loss,” unless it was specifically excluded. It noted that the parties could have, but did not, agree to exclude losses caused by viruses. The court found “conceivable” that a viral pathogen could rendеr the property unusable for a time.
¶ 24 Next, the court addressed Café‘s two asserted reasons for its lost income: the virus‘s omnipresence, which renders the building unsafe for normal use at full capacity, and the executive orders that severely restricted how restaurants may operate, primarily limiting them to preparing food on site for delivery and carryout. First, as to the virus, the court noted that Café had been operating during the pandemic, consistent with the Governor‘s restrictions. Its allegations relating to any actual physical damage, the court found, were “speculative and hyperbole.” It took judicial notice of the fact that the virus had not rendered other businesses unsafe or unusable and that the virus is easily destroyed with cleaning agents аnd ultraviolet light. Thus, Café had failed, it found, to allege a covered loss.
¶ 25 Second, as to the executive orders, the court determined that they were the reason that Café had reduced or restricted its operations. However, this did not trigger coverage. Such losses were excluded, it determined, because they resulted from “enforcement or compliance with any ordinance or law.” The court found that Café was prevented from fully using its premises, because it chose to comply with the restrictions, not because of viral contamination.
¶ 26 Café appeals. The Restaurant Law Center and the Illinois Restaurant Association filed a brief as amici curiae in support of Café‘s position.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Preliminary Matter
¶ 30
B. Standard of Review and Contract Interpretation Principles
¶ 32 The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in Society‘s favor and against Café. Section 2-615(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (
¶ 33 Under Illinois law, the general rules governing the interpretation of contracts govern the interpretation of insurance policies. Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Iles, 2013 IL App (5th) 120485, ¶ 20. A court‘s primary objective in construing the language of a policy is to ascertain and give effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in their agreement. Pekin Insurance Co. v. Precision Dose, Inc., 2012 IL App (2d) 110195, ¶ 31. If the policy terms are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their plain and ordinary meanings. American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473, 479 (1997). The “usual and ordinary” meaning of a phrase is ” ‘that meaning which the particular language conveys to the popular mind, to most people, to the average [person], *** to a business [person], or to a lay [person].’ ” Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90, 108 (1992) (quoting 2 Couch on Insurance 2d § 15:18 (rev. ed. 1984)).
¶ 35 If the language is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning, it is considered ambiguous and will be construed strictly against the insurer, who drafted the policy. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d at 479. Provisions that limit or exclude coverage are interpreted even more liberally in favor of the insured. Id. The test is not what the insurer intended its words to mean, but what a reasonable
C. Business Income and Extra Expense Coverages
¶ 37 Café first argues that the trial court erred in finding that its loss was not covered because the virus had not rendered other businesses unusable, was easily destroyed, and did not prevent all use of the property. Café contends that the virus was the root cause of its restricted use of its premises and, thus, its loss of income, and that Society‘s policy covered that loss. It contends that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice that the virus had not rendered other businesses unusable and that the virus is easily destroyed. Café maintains that the court was required to accept as true its allegations that the virus can remain suspended in the air for hours and remains active on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Also, Café asserts, it is capable of being transmitted in that fashion and, consequently, rendered the property unsafe. For those reasons, Café contends, it lost the full use of the premises. Café argues that the court erred in going outside the pleadings by improperly invoking judicial notice where the facts were disputed. It also points to the court‘s comparison of use of restaurants like Café with use of grocery stores, liquor stores, and retail stores. The latter, according to Café, were not so significantly impacted by the virus or the executive orders because of a critical difference between their use and use of restaurants: restaurant patrons must remove their masks to use the premises, resulting in exposure to the virus. This is why restaurants are presumably subject to stricter regulations. The court, Café asserts, declared things to be true about
¶ 38 Society responds that neither the Governor‘s orders nor any alleged presence of the virus altered the tangible, physical characteristics of the premises or permanently physically dispossessed Café of its property. Café‘s temporary reduction in operations, Society contends, was not the result of a “direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property.
¶ 39 We conclude that the policy unambiguously requires a physical alteration or substantial dispossession, not merely loss of use, which is what Café sufficiently pleaded it experienced. Both the business income and extra expense coverage provisions in Society‘s policy require a “direct physical loss of or damage to” Café‘s property that is “caused by or resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss” and provide covеrage for certain losses occurring “during the ‘period of restoration.’ ” A covered cause of loss is defined as a “Direct Physical Loss unless the loss is excluded or limited under this coverage form.”
¶ 40 The policy does not define “direct physical loss of or damage to.” The term “physical loss” is more relevant to our inquiry. “Loss” means “the act or fact of being unable to keep or maintain something or someone” (Merriam-Webster‘s Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loss (last visited Mar. 2, 2022) [https://perma.cc/Y7C8-5SRA]) or “DEPRIVATION” (Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary (1993)). The term “physical” modifies “loss.” “Physical” means “having material existence: perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature” and “of or relating to material things.” Merriam-Webster‘s Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical (last visited Mar. 2, 2021)
¶ 41 In our supreme court‘s decision in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Eljer Manufacturing, Inc., 197 Ill. 2d 278 (2001), its interpretation of the term “physical injury to tangible property,” is consistent with the dictionary definition of “physical” upon which we rely. Unlike here, Eljer involved several comprehensive general liability policies. At issue was the trigger for indemnity coverage in thousands of product liability claims alleging “property damage” arising out of the failure of a residential plumbing system. The policies that were controlled by Illinois law defined “property damage” as “physical injury to or destruction of tangible property.” Id. at 287. The insurers took the position that indemnity coverage was triggered when the systеm first leaked, and the policyholders argued that it was triggered at the time the system was installed. The supreme court held that “physical injury to tangible property” was not ambiguous and that tangible property suffers “physical” injury when that property is “altered in appearance, shape, color or in other material dimension.” Id. at 301 (relying on dictionary definition). Tangible property does not experience physical injury “if that property suffers intangible damage, such as diminution in value as a result from the failure of a component *** to function as promised.” Id. at 301-02, 310, 312.
¶ 43 First, Café alleged that the virus has a material existence and physically damages tangible property by rendering it unusable because it adheres to surfaces, creating a dangerous property condition and “direct physical loss of or damage to” the property. Case law assessing asbestos claims and noxious gas contamination cases, which present analogous scenarios, have held that such intangible damage may cause “physical loss” or physical “damage.” See, e.g., Inns by the Sea v. California Mutual Insurance Co., 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 576, 587-89 (Ct. App. 2021) (citing cases addressing presence of ammonia, wildfire smoke, asbestos, unsafe carbon monoxide levels, odor from methamphetamine operation, persistent cat urine odor, or sulfuric gas); see also Farmers Insurance Co. of Oregon v. Trutanich, 858 P.2d 1332, 1335-36 (Or. Ct. App. 1993) (relying on case law addressing airborne particulates and first holding that pervasive odor from methamphetamine operation was physical because it damaged a house; also, relying on a case involving gasoline and vapor contamination and infiltration, holding that the cost of removing the odor was a “direct physical loss,” where odor produced by methamphetamine lab infiltrated the house). However, we agree with the case law that has found these cases distinguishable, because, unlike here, the substances rendered the premises unusable. See, e.g., Inns by the Sea, 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 588-90 (finding the asbestos, gas, and smoke cases inapplicable because the virus, unlike the substances in the other cases, did not cause the premises to be uninhabitable or unsuitable for their intended purpose, where the government orders were issued in response to the virus‘s presence in the community at large; even if the plaintiff had sterilized its premises, it would
¶ 44 As we must read the policy as a whole (Wilson, 237 Ill. 2d at 455; Gibbs, 242 Ill. App. 3d at 152), we note that the period-of-restoration рrovision supports our conclusion. The policy provides coverage of lost business income and extra expense during the “period of restoration,” which begins at the time of “direct physical loss or damage *** caused by or resulting from any covered Cause of Loss” at the premises and ends on the earlier of (1) the date when the property “should be repaired, rebuilt or replaced with reasonable speed and similar quality” or (2) “[t]he date when the business is resumed at a new permanent location.” It includes “any increased period required to repair or reconstruct the property to comply with the minimum standard of, or compliance with[,] any ordinance or law, in force at the time of loss, that regulates the construction or repair, or requires the tearing down of property.” This provision assumes physical alteration of the property, not mere loss of use, because it provides coverage until the property “should be repaired, rebuilt or replaced.” “Repair,” which is undefined in Society‘s policy, means “to restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken: FIX.” Merriam-Webster‘s Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repair (last visited Mar. 2, 2022) [https://perma.cc/Q63P-QAZD]. “Rebuild” means “to make extensive repairs to:
¶ 45 Café‘s second theory is that the executive orders prohibited access to its business and that the continued orders required it to cease and/or significantly reduce access to, and operations at, its premises. These orders, it asserts, caused “direct physical loss of or damage to” its property. We disagree. The executive orders did not cause a tangible “loss of or damage to” Café‘s property, which is what is required for сoverage under the business income and extra expense provisions. They merely prohibited in-person dining, which is one use of the property, but permitted food preparation for carryout dining and delivery. Café seeks to equate loss of use with “direct physical loss,” which it cannot do. The prohibition on in-person dining was not connected to any change in the physical condition of the premises or property at the premises, nor did it cause any physical harm to the premises or any property. It caused an economic loss for Café.
¶ 46 Café also argues that “direct physical loss” must mean something other than “direct physical damage.” It contends that, otherwise, the policy contains surplus language. It argues that “direct physical loss” includes “loss of use.” We disagree. Café‘s interpretation reads out the word “physical” from the policy. Nor does “loss” have the same meaning as “loss of use.” Loss of use without “physical loss” is not covered. See Firenze Ventures LLC, 2021 WL 5865710, at *3 (“physical loss” does not refer to any dеprivation; it refers to “a deprivation caused by a tangible or concrete change in the condition or location of the thing that is lost“). Further, here, the policy uses the term “loss of use” elsewhere, indicating that it has a different meaning than mere “loss.” For example, in the exclusion for consequential losses, the policy provides that Society “will not
¶ 47 Finally, Café also notes that Society‘s policy did not contain a virus exclusion. We conclude that this is of no import here. Unless the policy already granted coverage, which it does not do, a virus exclusion was not necessary. Further, the absence of an exclusion cannot “create an ambiguity in an otherwise unambiguous insuring clause.” Inns by the Sea, 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 593-94.
¶ 48 We note that our decision is consistent with the majority of cases throughout the country interpreting the application of similar provisions to pandemic-related losses. See id. at 579 n.1 (in opinion dated November 15, 2021, noting that “overwhelming majority of federal district court cases find no possibility of coverage under commercial property insurance policies for a business‘s pandemic-related loss of income” and each federal appellate court to consider the issue concluded the same; collecting cases); Image Dental, LLC v. Citizens Insurance Co. of America, 543 F. Supp. 3d 582, 591-92 (N.D. Ill. 2021) (citing cases); see also 10A Couch on Insurance § 148:46 (Steven Plitt et al. eds., 3d ed. Nov. 2021 update) (“The requirement that the loss be ‘physical,’ given the ordinary definition of that term, is widely held to exclude alleged losses that are intangible or incorporeal and, thereby, to preclude any claim against the property insurer when the insured merely suffers a detrimental economic impact unaccompanied by a distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration of the property.“).
¶ 49 Indeed, all published federal appellate court decisions have ruled in the insurance companies’ favor. See Terry Black‘s Barbeque, L.L.C. v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co., 22 F.4th 450, 453, 455-58 (5th Cir. 2022) (applying Texas law and affirming judgment on the pleadings in insurer‘s favor; holding that the plaintiff restaurant group, which suspended dine-in
¶ 50 As Café notes, several district court decisions have interpreted similar insurance policy provisions to cover, or at least possibly cover, losses due to government COVID-19 closure orders. See, e.g., Seifert v. IMT Insurance Co., 542 F. Supp. 3d 874, 878-81 (D. Minn. 2021) (Minnesota law; executive orders closed the plaintiff‘s hair salon and barbershop; finding that Minnesota law did not require structural or tangible injury to property); Derek Scott Williams PLLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 522 F. Supp. 3d 457, 462-64 (N.D. Ill. 2021) (Texas law; government order postponed elective surgeries and nonemergency medical and dental procedures; declining to dismiss business income сlaims; finding that “physical loss” “is broad enough to cover *** a deprivation of the use of [the plaintiff‘s] premises” because that is its common meaning); In re Society Insurance Co. COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Insurance Litigation, 521 F. Supp. 3d 729, 741-43 (N.D. Ill. 2021) (Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Tennessee laws; restaurant and other hospitality-industry plaintiffs); Elegant Massage, LLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 506 F. Supp. 3d 360, 376 (E.D. Va. 2020) (the massage parlor plaintiff closed its business due to government closure order; plausible that parlor experienced “direct physical loss” when it was deemed uninhabitable and dangerous to use by the government orders because of its high risk of spreading virus; analogizing to noxious gas case law); Studio 417, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 478 F. Supp. 3d 794, 800-03 (W.D. Mo. 2020) (Missouri law). However, disagreement among courts concerning the interpretation of a policy provision does not, by itself, render the provision ambiguous. See, e.g., Erie Insurance Group v. Sear Corp., 102 F.3d 889, 894 (7th Cir. 1996) (rejecting the argument that an insurance policy term was ambiguous “on the basis of conflicting case law” interpreting the term). Further, we are not persuaded by the analyses in this case law.
¶ 51 For example, in In re Society Insurance Co., the district court denied Society‘s summary-judgment motion as to the policy‘s business income coverage. The disjunctive “or,” the court found, meant that “physical loss” covers something different from “physical damage.” In re Society Insurance Co., 521 F. Supp. 3d at 741. The court determined that a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiffs suffered a “direct physical loss of” property on their premises by the restrictions on onsite dining because (1) the shutdown orders imposed a physical limit (the restaurants were limited from using much of their physical space) and (2) the period-of-restoration provision did not warrant a different finding because it described a time period during which business income losses would be covered, not an explicit definition of coverage, and it included
¶ 52 Similarly, in Studio 417, Inc., the district court denied the insurer‘s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff hair salons and restaurants had adequately alleged a “direct physical loss” under the рolicies. Studio 417, Inc., 478 F. Supp. 3d at 800. First, it determined that the plaintiffs alleged a causal relationship between the virus and their losses, that the virus is a physical substance and lives on surfaces and is emitted into the air, and that the virus attached to and deprived them of their property, making it ” ‘unsafe and unusable, resulting in direct physical loss to the premises and property.’ ” Id. These allegations, the court found, plausibly alleged “direct physical loss” based on the ordinary meaning of the phrase. Id. Second, the court determined that “physical loss” was different from physical “damage” and that “physical loss” may occur when the property is uninhabitable or unusable for its intended purpose. Id. at 801-03 (citing, among others, an asbestos case and noting that contrary case law was decided at the summary-judgment stage, was factually dissimilar, and/or was not binding). The plaintiffs had alleged physical contamination by the virus, which was likely on their premises and caused them to cease or suspend operations. Id. at 802. Rejecting case law that held that the virus does not cause “direct physical loss,” the district court commented that the presence of the virus on premises “is not a benign condition.” Id. The plaintiffs, it found, plausibly alleged that the virus attached to and damaged their property, which caused the premises to be unsafe and unusable. Id.
¶ 53 We decline to follow these cases, because they ignore the unambiguous, plain, and ordinary meaning of “direct physical loss” and do not read the policies as a whole, the latter evidenced by their strained analyses of the period-of-restoration provisions. They also fail to closely read the noxious gas and related cases, which, as noted, were decided on the bases that the substances at
¶ 54 We are not unsympathetic to the immense challenges facing restaurants and other hospitality-service providers during the present pandemic. However, we must construe the contract into which the parties entered and hold them to their agreement.
¶ 55 In summary, the partial loss of Café‘s use of its premises, without аny physical alteration to the property or a deprivation of use or access so substantial as to constitute a physical dispossession, was not sufficient to allege a “direct physical loss of or damage to” its property to trigger coverage under Society‘s business interruption or extra expense additional coverages. Because we conclude that there is no coverage under the additional coverage provisions, we need not, and do not, consider whether any applicable coverage would be excluded under the ordinance or law exclusion.
III. CONCLUSION
¶ 58 Affirmed.
¶ 59 JUSTICE MCLAREN, specially concurring:
¶ 60 I specially concur because I wish to discuss a rule of construction. The Latin phrase expressio unius est exclusio alterius means that “to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of the other or alternative.” Black‘s Law Dictionary 620 (8th ed. 2004) (also termed inclusio unius est exclusio alterius). This familiar maxim has been cited as authority as far back as 1806 by the United States Supreme Court (Manella, Pujals & Co. v. Barry, 7 U.S. (Cranch) 415, 430 (1806)) and 1891 by our supreme court (McWilliams v. Morgan, 61 Ill. 89, 93 (1891)). It applies to the interpretation of statutes (see, e.g., Schultz v. Performance Lighting, Inc., 2013 IL 115738, ¶ 17; In re D.W., 214 Ill. 2d 289, 308 (2005)) and contracts (see, e.g., Lobo IV, LLC v. Land Chicago Canal, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 170955, ¶ 83; Krause v. GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 314 Ill. App. 3d 376, 386 (2000)).5
¶ 61 The parties and the majority neither mention nor cite the rule. If Café had cited the rule, it would have compromised its argument regarding coverage because there was only one kind of loss listed. The rule limited coverage to only physical loss and excluded other forms of loss.
¶ 62 Concomitantly, if Society had cited the rule, it would have compromised its claim of exclusion of coverage because the Governor‘s executive orders are neither a law nor an ordinance.
¶ 63 The majority does not address the merits of the law or ordinance exclusion but states, “Such losses were excluded, [the trial court] determined, because they resulted from [‘]enforcement or compliance with any ordinance or law.[‘] ” Supra ¶ 33. The majority is not required to address issues not necessary to the review of the judgment to affirm. See West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Krishna Sсhaumburg Tan, Inc., 2021 IL 125978, ¶ 60 (after affirming on another basis, the court concluded there was no need to address the remaining issue raised by the appellee). However, I specially concur because I wish to emphasize that the rule of construction should be utilized by trial courts regardless of whether the parties cite it.6
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County, No. 20-CH-266; the Hon. Kevin T. Busch, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys for Appellant: Michael W. Rathsack, and Antonio M. Romanucci, Gina A. Deboni, and David A. Neiman, of Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, both of Chicago, and Robert P. Rutter and Robert A. Rutter, of Rutter & Russin, LLC, and Nicholas A. DiCello, Dennis R. Lansdowne, and Jeremy A. Tor, of Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, LLP, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Attorneys for Appellee: Michael D. Sanders, Michelle A. Miner, and Amy E. Frantz, of Purcell & Wardrope, Chtrd., of Chicago, for appellee.
Amicus Curiae: John H. Mathias Jr., David M. Kroeger, Megan B. Poetzel, Gabriel K. Gillett, and Sara M. Stappert, of Jenner & Block LLP, of Chicago, for amici curiae Restaurant Law Center et al.
Michael R. Enright, of Robinson & Cole LLP, of Hartford, Connecticut, for amici curiae American Property Casualty Insurance Association et al.