- Beth A. Jenson Prouty
- Of Counsel
- Minneapolis, Minnesota
- 612-375-5927 direct dial
- 612-339-7655 fax
Beth Jenson Prouty focuses her practice in litigation–primarily in the areas of insurance coverage, appeals, automobile law, business litigation, employment law, and professional liability–where she puts her skills to use advocating for her clients. Beth has significant experience in complex motion and appellate work, having clerked for the Honorable Alan C. Page, Helen M. Meyer, and Christopher J. Dietzen at the Minnesota Supreme Court, and having briefed and argued multiple appellate cases.
Beth started her law practice at Arthur Chapman, and then spent two years at a Minneapolis law firm, as part of a large coverage practice, where she assisted as national coverage counsel advising on general liability, sexual molestation/misconduct, professional liability, and employment practices liability coverages around the United States. Beth rejoined Arthur Chapman in 2017.
Whatever the case involves, Beth uses in-depth analytical research to understand legal issues. Her strongest asset is the ability to clearly convey complex issues in an easy-to-understand manner. Clients appreciate that Beth is dedicated a
nd focuses on providing the best possible results in each case. Beth promptly responds to client’s questions and concerns.
- “Trends In CGL Coverage Litigation,” Insurance Coverage Seminar, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A., May 2018
- "Practical Considerations and Common Issues Arising in Claims Resolution” – ABA Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee Seminar, March 3, 2018 (co-presenter)
- "CGL Policy Occurrences, Exclusions and Exceptions – Complex Issues," National Business Institute Webinar, April 6, 2017 (co-presenter and co-author)
- "Handling UM/UIM Claims," National Insurance Company, January 2017
- "CGL Property Damage Exclusions," National Insurance Company, August 2016 (co-presenter)
- "An Attorney's Guide to CGL Policy and Coverage," National Business Institute Webinar, May 20, 2016 (co-presenter and co-author)
- "Commercial General Liability Policy: The Complete Guide for Attorneys," National Business Institute Webinar, December 9, 2015 (co-presenter and co-author)
- "First Party Property Claims and Matching Issues," Hennepin County Bar Association, The Insurance and Tort Law Section, September 23, 2014 (panelist)
- “The Art of Effective Motion Practice,” Minnesota State Bar Association, March 2012
Rising Star®, Minnesota Law & Politics, 2012-2017
University of Minnesota, J.D., 2008 (Honors: magna cum laude and Book Award (highest grade in the class) in Modern Real Estate and Constitutional Law. International Moot Court, received the Second Best Oralist Award, and later serving as managing director).
Metropolitan State University, B.S., A.A., A.A.S., 2004 (Honors: Graduate)
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 2010
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 2011
- Practical Considerations and Common Issues Arising in Claims Resolution, ABA Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee, 2018 (co-author)
- Uninsured Motorist and Underinsured Motorist Coverage Compendium, Defense Research Institute, 2016 (co-author)
- Six Years After Swanson: Whose Gap Is It, Anyway?, Collateral Source Law Update, Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association, Spring 2016 (co-author)
- Drafted update to Partial Releases, Participation Agreement, Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association Deskbook, 2011
- Drafted update to MSBA Appellate Practice Group resource, Behind the Scenes at the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court, 2010
- The Nonmoving Party’s Evidentiary Burden At Summary Judgment: Substantial evidence? Sufficient evidence? Does it matter?, Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association, Winter, 2010
Professional Associations and Memberships
Defense Research Institute
Hennepin County Bar Association
Minnesota Defense Lawyer’s Association
Minnesota Hispanic Bar Association
Minnesota State Bar Association
Minnesota Women Lawyers
Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hegel, 847 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 2017). Obtained reversal of district court order granting summary judgment to claimant. The Eighth Circuit applied Kentucky law to an insurance policy issued in Kentucky to a Kentucky company with operations nation-wide, even though the claim giving rise to coverage involved an automobile accident that occurred in North Dakota and involved all North Dakota drivers.
Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Schwieger, 685 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2012). Obtained reversal of district court order granting summary judgment to insured and order for entry of summary judgment for insurer on application of the “care, custody or control” exclusion.
Northern Promotions, Inc. v. General Cas. Co., No. 16-626 (ADM/LIB), 2016 WL 3661147 (D. Minn. July 5, 2016). Obtained dismissal for insurer, because 2-year suit limitation applied to insured’s demand for an appraisal.
Progressive Universal Ins. Co. v. John, No. 13-2863 (DWF/FLN), 2014 WL 4669101 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2014). Obtained summary judgment for insurer on argument that a non-permissive vehicle driver was not an “insured” under the policy.
Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Moon, 845 F. Supp. 2d 989 (D. Minn. 2012). Obtained summary judgment for insurer based on “business-use” exclusion.
Hegseth v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Group, 877 N.W.2d 191 (Minn. 2016) (amicus brief). Court affirmed existing precedent, concluding the 6-year statute of limitations on a claim for both primary and excess uninsured motorist benefits begins to run on the date of the motor vehicle accident.
Cedar Bluff Townhome Condo. Ass’n v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 857 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. 2014) (amicus brief). Briefed issue of whether replacement cost coverage providing for replacement of lost or damage property with property “of comparable material and quality” required an identical color match, or reasonable color match, for siding on condominiums.
Eng’g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co., 825 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. 2013) (amicus brief). Briefed issue of whether subcontractor’s insurer was required to indemnify general contractor under an additional insured endorsement limiting the contractor’s coverage to vicarious liability for the subcontractor’s negligence, when a jury held the subcontractor was not negligent.
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Earthsoils, Inc., 812 N.W.2d 873, 875 (Minn. App. 2012), review denied (Minn. 2012). Obtained reversal of district court order granting summary judgment to insured on holding that failure to achieve anticipated crop yield is not covered “property damage.”
Scherber v. Nor-Son, Inc., No. A11-962, 2012 WL 1069988 (Minn. App. Apr. 2, 2012). Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding subcontractor’s insurer had the duty to defend Nor-Son as the general contractor.
Gaza Beef v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., No. A11-444, 2011 WL 3654533 (Minn. App. Aug. 22, 2011), review denied (Minn. Nov. 15, 2011). Obtained reversal of district court order granting summary judgment to insured on application of the “care, custody or control” exclusion.
Vogel v. Burton Insurance Agency, Inc. (Dakota Cty. Dist. Ct. (2010)). Obtained summary judgment for agent, on the court’s holding that an insurance agent who was requested to procure “full replacement coverage” for an insured did not have a duty to value the insured’s buildings when obtaining coverage. Such duty to value the property only arose if the agent affirmatively agreed to appraise the property.
St. Jude Medical, S.C., Inc. v. Arindom Barooah, et al., No. A15-0542 (Minn. App. 2015) (appealed jury verdict on whether Barooah breached restrictive covenants in employment agreement with St. Jude Medical) (case dismissed by parties before decision issued).
Scherber v. Nor-Son, Inc., No. A11-962, 2012 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 275 (Minn. App. Apr. 2, 2012) (affirming the district’s courts holding that application of the common enterprise doctrine precluded recovery, because general contractor and subcontractor were engaged in a common enterprise).
Kapps v. Biosense Webster, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Minn. 2011) (drafted summary judgment motion on the issue of whether a medical-device reprocessor is a service provider, or can be held liable as a manufacturer).