This decision holds that an insurer can choose the risks it insures. So long as it does so clearly and unambiguously, the policy terms will be enforced unless they are contrary to statutory law. California does not recognize any illusory coverage doctrine that would force an insurer to cover risks beyond those stated clearly in the policy. However, if the policy is ambiguous, the fact that one interpretation might render the coverage illusory is properly considered in choosing the other interpretation instead. Here, the policy clearly covered loss due to virus only if the virus was caused by named causes. The insured cannot invoke the illusory coverage doctrine to broaden that coverage to include virus damages if due to other causes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the insured could not show that it reasonably expected coverage of its pandemic-caused losses and could not show that the coverage expressly granted was, in fact, illusory–that is, affording no coverage under all reasonably anticipated circumstances