North Star Mutual Insurance v. Ackerman, 940 N.W.2d 857

North Star issued a commercial general liability (CGL) policy to Jayme Ackerman d/b/a Ackerman Homes.
A wheelbarrow allegedly fell from Ackerman’s pickup on I-94; Chase swerved to avoid it, lost control, crossed the median, and struck Kyle Lantz, causing severe injuries.
A damaged wheelbarrow resembling Ackerman’s was found near the collision site; North Star sought a declaratory judgment denying coverage and defense obligations.
District court assumed for summary-judgment purposes the wheelbarrow belonged to Ackerman and found multiple negligent acts: vehicle-related (transportation/loading) and nonvehicle-related (failure to remove/warn).
The court applied the concurrent-cause doctrine, held the CGL policy covered the nonvehicle risks (failure to remove/warn) even though some vehicle-related acts were excluded, and ruled North Star had a duty to defend; North Star appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CGL policy excludes coverage because the injury arose out of the use of an automobile	North Star: exclusion for use of an auto bars coverage for all alleged causes	Lantz/Ackerman: some causes were independent nonvehicle acts and thus covered	Court: transportation/fall is excluded, but independent failure-to-remove/warn are nonvehicle acts and not excluded; concurrent cause yields coverage
Whether the loading/unloading exclusion precludes coverage for the wheelbarrow incident	North Star: loading/unloading exclusion applies to the wheelbarrow’s movement/fall	Lantz/Ackerman: other alleged negligent acts are not loading/unloading and are covered	Court: loading/unloading and vehicle use are excluded, but those exclusions do not bar coverage for independent nonvehicle causes that contributed
Whether Ackerman had a duty to remove the wheelbarrow or warn other drivers after it fell	North Star: disputes imposition of such a duty or that failure was a covered proximate cause	Lantz/Ackerman: duty exists; failure to remove or to warn is negligent and a covered cause	Court: as matter of law Ackerman had a duty to remove or cause removal and to warn; those failures can be proximate, covered causes

Norgaard v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 201 N.W.2d 871 (N.D. 1972) (defines scope of "arising out of" and causal nexus requirement)
Houser v. Gilbert, 389 N.W.2d 626 (N.D. 1986) (vehicle can create road hazard but failure to remove/warn are independent, nonvehicle acts)
Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Center Mut. Ins. Co., 658 N.W.2d 363 (N.D. 2003) (adopts concurrent-cause doctrine when excluded and included risks both contribute)
State, ex rel. State Fire & Tornado Fund v. N.D. State Univ., 694 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 2005) (explains concurrent-cause rule permitting coverage if an included risk appreciably contributes)
Dahms v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 920 N.W.2d 293 (N.D. 2018) (summarizes summary-judgment and insurance-policy interpretation standards)