United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2313 CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. WYNNDALCO ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 20-cv-03873 — John Z. Lee, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED FEBRUARY 14, 2023 — DECIDED JUNE 15, 2023 ____________________

Before ROVNER, KIRSCH, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. This business insurance coverage dispute calls on us to decide whether a broad catch-all provi- sion in a violation-of-statutes exclusion relieves the insurer of the duty to defend its insured in litigation over violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 141 et seq. After Wynndalco Enterprises, LLC was sued 2 No. 22-2313 in two putative class actions for violating BIPA, its business liability insurer, Citizens Insurance Company of America, filed this action seeking a declaration that it has no obligation under the terms of the insurance contract to indemnify Wynndalco for the BIPA violations or to supply Wynndalco with a defense. Citizens’ theory is that alleged violations of BIPA are expressly excluded from the coverage of the policy. Wynndalco counterclaimed seeking a declaration to the con- trary that Citizens is obligated to provide it with a defense in both actions. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings for Wynndalco, finding that the language of the catch-all exclusion is ambiguous on its face and that, constru- ing that ambiguity in favor of the insured, Citizens conse- quently had a duty to defend Wynndalco. 1 We agree with the

1 This is an issue that has divided the lower courts. Compare Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC v. Mitsui Sumitomo Ins. USA, Inc., No. 21 C 788, 2023 WL 319235, at *5–*7 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2023), appeals filed, Nos. 23-1521 & 23-1578 (7th Cir. Mar. 20 & 27, 2023); Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., S.I. v. Carnagio En- ters., Inc., No. 20 C 3665, 2022 WL 952533, at *6–*7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2022); Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Highland Baking Co., No. 20-cv-04997, 2022 WL 1210709, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2022); Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC, 588 F.Supp.3d 845, 853–54 (N.D. Ill. 2022); Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., S.I. v. Caremel, Inc., No. 20 C 637, 2022 WL 79868, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2022) (all rejecting arguments that similar catch-all exclusions un- ambiguously barred coverage for BIPA violations), with State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fruit Fusion, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —, No. 3:21-CV-1132-NJR, 2022 WL 4549824 (S.D. Ill. Sep. 29, 2022); Continental W. Ins. Co. v. Cheese Merchants of Am., LLC, — F.Supp.3d —, No. 21-cv-1571, 2022 WL 4483886, at *9–*16 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 27, 2022); Westfield Ins. Co. v. Archer Advisors, LLC, No. 21 CH 1469 (Cook Cnty. Cir. Ct. Aug. 4, 2022) (unpublished transcript attached to Citizens Br. as Exhibit A); Mass. Bay Ins. Co. v. Impact Fulfillment Servs., LLC, No. 1:20 CV 926, 2021 WL 4392061, at *5–*7 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 24, 2021) (applying North Carolina law) (all concluding that similar catch-all exclusions barred coverage for BIPA violations). No. 22-2313 3 district court that the facial breadth of the catch-all provision gives rise to an ambiguity in the policy, in that the catch-all provision appears to nullify coverage that the policy else- where purports to provide. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Wynndalco Enters., LLC, 595 F.Supp.3d 668 (N.D. Ill. 2022). The narrowing construction that Citizen