North Star Mutual Insurance Company v. Lyle Rodin; Darin Rodin

No. 24-1180 (8th Cir. Apr. 7, 2026) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · April 7, 2026 · No. 24-1180

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment declaring that North Star Mutual Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify the Rodins in a state-court bodily-injury action. Applying North Dakota law, the court held that carbon monoxide emitted from a portable heater qualified as a pollutant under the policy and that the pollution exclusion unambiguously barred coverage. The court also denied the Rodins’ request to certify the interpretation question to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Smith, Circuit Judge; Kelly, Circuit Judge; Grasz, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decision date
April 7, 2026
Docket number
24-1180
Procedural posture
The insured defendants appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment declaring that their insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify them in an underlying state-court personal-injury action.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Lyle Rodin, Darin Rodin v. North Star Mutual Insurance Company
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

insurance coverageduty to defendduty to indemnifydeclaratory relief insuranceappellate procedure

Practice areas

insurance lawcontractsappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Eighth Circuit should certify to the North Dakota Supreme Court the question whether the policy's pollution exclusion applies to bodily injury allegedly caused by carbon monoxide from a portable heater.
  2. Whether, under North Dakota law, carbon monoxide emitted from the portable heater constituted the discharge of a pollutant within the policy's unambiguous pollution exclusion, thereby eliminating North Star's duties to defend and indemnify the Rodins.

Holdings

  1. Certification was not warranted because North Dakota law supplied sufficient guidance to permit a nonconjectural determination of the pollution-exclusion issue, and the Rodins' post-judgment request did not present the limited circumstances justifying certification after an adverse federal judgment.
  2. The policy's pollution exclusion unambiguously barred coverage for Alber's bodily-injury claim because carbon monoxide is a gaseous contaminant or irritant, and its emission from the portable heater constituted the discharge of a pollutant within the exclusion.

Key quotations

Certification is by no means ‘obligatory’ merely because state law is unsettled; the choice instead rests ‘in the sound discretion of the federal court.’ (at 4)
Applying this ordinary definition of discharge, we conclude that Alber’s claims are excluded if carbon monoxide is a “pollutant” as used in the pollution exclusion provision. (at 9)
Thus, carbon monoxide constitutes a pollutant under the Policy. (at 10)

Factual background

The Rodins operated a farm in southeastern North Dakota and had a liability insurance policy issued by North Star. Larry Alber alleged that a portable heater in the Rodins' farm shop emitted dangerous levels of carbon monoxide, causing serious cardiovascular and neurological injuries while he worked on the farm. The policy covered bodily-injury liability but excluded injuries resulting from the discharge, dispersal, release, or escape of pollutants, and defined pollutants to include gaseous irritants or contaminants.

Procedural history

Larry Alber sued Lyle and Darin Rodin in North Dakota state court for injuries allegedly caused by carbon monoxide emitted from a portable heater on the Rodins' farm. North Star filed this federal declaratory-judgment action against the Rodins. The district court granted North Star summary judgment and declared that the pollution exclusion barred coverage, after which the Rodins appealed and sought certification of the insurance-interpretation question to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…