(Article from Insurance Law Alert, April 2026)
For more information, please visit the Insurance Law Alert Resource Center.
Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of an insurer, holding that a liability insurance policy’s pollution exclusion bars coverage for injuries caused by carbon monoxide emissions. N. Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rodin, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9969 (8th Cir. Apr. 7, 2026).
Background
An employee of a farm sued its owners, the Rodins, for cardiovascular and neurological injuries resulting from exposure to carbon monoxide emissions from a space heater. After the underlying suit was filed, the Rodins’ insurer, North Star Mutual Insurance Company (“North Star”), filed a declaratory judgment action in federal district court seeking a declaration that coverage was barred by the policy’s pollution exclusion. The policy excludes coverage for: “‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ that results from the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, spill, release, or escape of ‘pollutants’ into or upon land, water, or air.” It defines “pollutant” as: “any solid, liquid, gaseous, thermal, or radioactive irritant or contaminant, including acids, alkalis, chemicals, fumes, smoke, soot, vapor, and waste.”
Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted North Star’s motion and denied the Rodins’ motion. On appeal, the Rodins sought certification to the North Dakota Supreme Court of whether, under North Dakota law, “North Star Mutual Insurance Company’s ‘pollution’ exclusion appl[ies] to exclude coverage for an individual bodily injury claim allegedly due to carbon monoxide exposure caused by a portable heater being used to heat a farm shop[.]”
Decision
The Eighth Circuit first denied the Rodins’ request for certification. The court emphasized that post-judgment certification is disfavored and appropriate only in limited circumstances, warning that permitting certification after an adverse ruling would render district court decisions “nothing but a gamble.”
On the merits, and in the absence of North Dakota precedent, the Eighth Circuit applied North Dakota rules of contract interpretation. The court noted that the North Dakota courts “will not rewrite a contract to impose liability on an insurer if the policy unambiguously precludes coverage.” Applying that framework, the court held that the exclusion unambiguously barred coverage. The court focused on whether the alleged carbon monoxide injuries constituted a “discharge” of a “pollutant.” Relying on dictionary definitions, the court concluded that the heater’s emission of carbon monoxide constituted a “discharge,” as the term encompasses the release of fumes. The court further held that carbon monoxide qualified as a “pollutant” under the policy. Specifically, it determined that carbon monoxide is a “gaseous . . . contaminant” that can “render air ‘unfit for use’ if introduced at high levels.” Because the injuries arose from the discharge of a pollutant into the air, the court held that the pollution exclusion applied and affirmed judgment for North Star.
Comments
Courts addressing coverage for carbon monoxide claims have reached divergent results, often depending on how they interpret the scope of the pollution exclusion. Some jurisdictions, invoking the reasonable expectations doctrine, limit such exclusions to “traditional environmental pollution.” Other courts, including the Eighth Circuit in this case, apply the exclusion according to its plain language to cover indoor emissions such as carbon monoxide.