BAP-new
  • Beth A. Jenson Prouty
  • Shareholder
  • Co-Chair - Insurance Coverage
  • Arthur Chapman Kettering Smetak & Pikala, P.A.
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • 612-375-5927  direct dial
  • 612-339-7655  fax

  • bajensonprouty@arthurchapman.com
LinkedIn vCard Print Arthur Chapman Kettering Smetak & Pikala, P.A.

Beth Jenson Prouty focuses her practice in litigation–primarily in the areas of insurance coverage, appeals, commercial and personal auto, business litigation, and employment law–where she puts her skills to use advocating for her clients. Beth has significant experience in complex motion and appellate work, having briefed and argued multiple appellate cases, and clerked for the Honorable Alan C. Page, Helen M. Meyer, and Christopher J. Dietzen at the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Whatever the case involves, Beth uses in-depth analytical research to understand legal issues. Her strongest asset is her ability to clearly convey complex issues in an easy-to-understand manner. Clients appreciate that Beth is dedicated and focused on providing the best possible results in each case, and that she makes an effort to be in constant communication with her clients about their cases.

Education

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)

Click to see full Bio
Biography

Beth Jenson Prouty focuses her practice in litigation–primarily in the areas of insurance coverage, appeals, commercial and personal auto, business litigation, and employment law–where she puts her skills to use advocating for her clients. Beth has significant experience in complex motion and appellate work, having briefed and argued multiple appellate cases, and clerked for the Honorable Alan C. Page, Helen M. Meyer, and Christopher J. Dietzen at the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Whatever the case involves, Beth uses in-depth analytical research to understand legal issues. Her strongest asset is her ability to clearly convey complex issues in an easy-to-understand manner. Clients appreciate that Beth is dedicated and focused on providing the best possible results in each case, and that she makes an effort to be in constant communication with her clients about their cases.

Honors

  • Rising Star® 2012-18, Super Lawyers® 2021-2023, Thomson Reuters

Presentations

  • "Bad Faith and Wrongful Refusal to Settle: Liability in Excess of Policy Limits," MN CLE, May 2023
  • “Highlights of Property Coverage Claims,”  Minnesota Claim Managers Association, May 2023
  • "COVID-19 Class Action & MDLs: Emerging & Expected Realities for Insurance Coverage & Employment Litigation," Minnesota CLE, January 2021
  • "Insurance Topics Every Attorney Should Know," Minnesota CLE, October 2020
  • "Don't Take Jurisdiction Personally! The Personal Jurisdiction Framework Applied to Motor Carriers," Arkansas Trucking Seminar, September 2020
  • "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

​Publications

  • For the Love of the Game, CLM Publication, November 2023
  • Bad Faith, Minnesota Deskbook Update (co-author), Spring 2022
  • Minnesota Defense: Navigating the Changes to the Rules Governing Miller-Shugart Settlement Agreements in Minnesota
  • "Life on the Farm: Coverage When Something Goes Wrong," 2018 - Issue 6, DRI Covered Events
  • 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

Education

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)

Bar Admissions

Minnesota
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Professional Associations and Memberships

Defense Research Institute
Hennepin County Bar Association
Minnesota Defense Lawyer’s Association - Insurance Law Committee Co-Chair
Minnesota Hispanic Bar Association
Minnesota Legislative Salary Council
Minnesota State Bar Association
Minnesota Women Lawyers

License

Minnesota

Experience

Representative Cases

Federal Court:

Rodenburg LLP v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, 432 F. Supp. 3d 979 (D.N.D. 2020), affirmed (8th Cir. 2021). Obtained summary judgment for insurer on holding that claims for “bodily injury” caused by alleged wrongful garnishment were not caused by an “occurrence” and Violation of Statutes exclusion excluded claims for “personal and advertising injury.”

Progressive v. Rithmiller, 505 F.Supp.3d 899 (D. Minn. 2020).  Obtained summary judgment for insurer on finding that stepson did not have significant connection to stepmother’s home and was not a “resident” of home so as to be an “insured person” under auto policy.  

Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. v. Estate of Stover, No. 19-CV-2536 (ECT/LIB), 2020 WL 5407902 (D. Minn. Sept. 9, 2020). Obtained summary judgment for insurer on finding that automatic termination provision precluded coverage where insured had sold vehicle but not removed it from the policy.

Rest. Recycling, LLC v. Employer Mut. Cas. Co., 922 F.3d 414 (8th Cir. 2019) Obtained affirmance of district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings to Employer Mutual. The court applied the absolute pollution exclusion to exclude coverage for claims alleging that fat product distributed by Restaurant Recycling contained chemicals not approved for use in animal feed.

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.

Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Richards, No. 17-3603 (JRT/LIB), 2018 WL 3243987 (D. Minn. July 3, 2018).  Obtained summary judgment for insurer on holding that definition of “motor vehicle” in PIP endorsement did not modify the rest of the insurance policy.

Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. v. Graeser, 296 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (D. Minn. 2017).  Obtained summary judgment for insurer on holding that golf cart is not a “motor vehicle” under the Minnesota No-Fault Act.
 
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.

State Court:
Rose v. Kohls, No. A22-0209, 2022 WL 9612966 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2022). In medical-malpractice appeal, successfully defended jury verdict finding child’s brachial plexus injury during birth was not caused by any negligence of the OB/GYN or her employer. The court of appeals found evidence to support the jury’s verdict and that appellant was not prejudiced by the district court’s evidentiary rulings.
 
Renstrom v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., No. 2017-AP-859 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). Court affirmed summary judgment to Progressive, holding injuries from wood chipper accident were excluded as arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of Cabin Property, and also rejecting insured’s arguments about reasonable expectations and ambiguity.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Business Litigation:
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).

Practice Areas

Legal Team