Beth A. Jenson Prouty

Representative Cases

Federal Appellate Decisions:

Rodenburg LLP v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, 9 F.4th 1033 (8th Cir. 2021). Obtained affirmance of summary judgment for insurer, 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.”

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.

State Appellate Decisions:

Fond du Lac Mgmt., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. A23-0639, 2023 WL 8536511 (Minn. App. Dec. 11, 2023).  Court affirmed district court’s dismissal of claims for COVID business interruption, holding a claim that COVID was “likely” on the premises was not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The “likelihood” of something present cannot cause “direct physical loss or damage.”

Ridgewood Bay Resort, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., No. A21-1352, 2022 WL 2195871, at *1 (Minn. App. June 20, 2022).  Successfully defended against appeal alleging the district court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend to allege bad faith.

Rose v. Kohls, No. A22-0209, 2022 WL 9612966 (Minn. 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. 

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). 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). Obtained reversal of district court order granting summary judgment to insured on application of the “care, custody or control” exclusion.

Amicus Briefs

1. Prisk v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 81 F.4th 782 (8th Cir. 2023) (reversing the district court, the Eighth Circuit held that a municipality does not waive statutory caps on damages for governmental tort liability when it procures a policy that provides a limit of $500,000 for claims subject to Minnesota’s statutory cap on municipal tort liability, and a separate $2,000,000 limit for claims that are not subject to the cap).
2. St. Matthews Church of God & Christ v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 981 N.W.2d 760 (Minn. 2022) (considering Minnesota’s statutory requirements for ordinance and law coverage).
3. Poitra v. Short, 966 N.W.2d 819 (Minn. 2021) (enforcing resident relative exclusions).
4. King's Cove Marina, LLC v. Lambert Com. Constr. LLC, 958 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. 2021) (addressing Miller-Shugart settlement agreements and the “Your Work” exclusion in connection to the Products Completed Operations Hazard limit).
5. Peterson v. W. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 946 N.W.2d 903 (Minn. 2020) (addressing first-party bad faith claims in Minnesota).
6. Frauendorfer v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., No. A16-0818, 2017 WL 1316110, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2017) (addressing claim for UIM coverage on a motorcycle policy). 
7. Hegseth v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Group, 877 N.W.2d 191 (Minn. 2016) (setting forth when UM claims being to accrue).
8. Cedar Bluff Townhome Condo. Ass’n v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 857 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. 2014) (setting forth Minnesota law on first-party property claims for matching).
9. Eng’g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co., 825 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. 2013) (defining “arising out of” and “caused by” liability).

Notable Summary Judgment Motions

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.

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.

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.