No. 19-3731 ___________________________

Courtney Godfrey

Plaintiff - Appellant

Ryan Novaczyk

Plaintiff

v.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; Government Employers Insurance Company

Defendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: November 18, 2020 Filed: August 24, 2021 ____________ Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ KOBES, Circuit Judge.

Courtney Godfrey sued State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and the Government Employers Insurance Company for liability coverage after she was injured on her husband’s boat. The district court 1 granted summary judgment for the insurers, and we affirm.

I.

Godfrey was seriously hurt when she was thrown from her husband, Ryan Novaczyk’s, boat. Godfrey and Novaczyk filed claims for her injuries with State Farm, who insured the boat, and GEICO, who sold Novaczyk an umbrella insurance policy. Both policies had household exclusions: in other words, they declined coverage for injuries to the insured or members of the insured’s household. Both insurers denied the personal injury claims because Godfrey and Novaczyk were married and lived together.

Godfrey sued Novaczyk, GEICO, and State Farm. GEICO removed the case to federal court, and Novaczyk was realigned as a plaintiff. Godfrey agreed that the household exclusions applied to her claim, but she argued that they violated Minnesota public policy. She also asked the district court to certify the public policy question to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The district court refused and instead granted summary judgment to the insurers because the exclusions were not prohibited by statute or Minnesota public policy. Godfrey appeals.

II.

The parties agree on the facts and that Minnesota law applies. We apply de novo review to the district court’s interpretation of the contracts, application of state laws, and summary judgment decisions. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., S.I. v. Mid-Am. Grain Distribs., LLC, 958 F.3d 748, 752 (8th Cir. 2020). “Because we are interpreting Minnesota law, we are bound by the decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court, and if the Minnesota Supreme Court has not spoken on a particular

1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2- issue, we must attempt to predict how the Minnesota Supreme Court would decide it and may consider relevant state precedent, analogous decisions, considered dicta[,] and any other reliable data.” Engineered Sales, Co. v. Endress + Hauser, Inc., 980 F.3d 597, 599 (8th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted) (cleaned up).

Godfrey suggests that the question of umbrella and boatowner’s liability insurance coverage arising from spousal negligence creates a novel question of law that we should certify to the Minnesota Supreme Court. We review the district court’s decision not to certify a question of law under an abuse of discretion standard. Anderson v. Hess Corp., 649 F.3d 891, 895 (8th Cir. 2011). We also have “an independent discretion of our own to decide whether certification is appropriate.” Knowles v. United States, 29 F.3d 1261, 1265 n.8 (8th Cir. 1994).

Minnesota’s “‘well-settled general rule in the construction of insurance contracts’ permits parties to ‘contract as they desire, and