CarGuard Lawsuit: TCPA Claims and Warranty Disputes 2026

Never Miss a Lawsuit Update

Mark Lawfold as a Preferred Source so you never miss a settlement deadline or new filing.

Latest Update — As of July 16, 2026: There is still no certified nationwide class action settlement against CarGuard Administration. Fleming v. CarGuard Administration Inc. (W.D. Virginia, Case 6:2024cv00057) remains the most recent active federal TCPA filing against the company, though no new docket activity beyond its last public entry in January 2025 has been confirmed. Multiple 2026 legal-news sources continue to describe the litigation as ongoing across individual TCPA and breach-of-contract claims, with settlement talks reportedly continuing but no court-approved agreement announced. Consumers with unresolved robocall or claim-denial issues still have the option of individual TCPA and breach-of-contract claims rather than waiting on a class settlement.

Last updated: July 2026

You might also find this useful — Reed-Nelson Lawsuit 2026: Settlement and Payout Guide

The CarGuard lawsuit is actually two separate legal battles happening at the same time. One is a federal TCPA robocall case that was dismissed in August 2022 but set a major legal precedent. The other is a growing wave of individual breach of contract claims from car owners whose repair claims were denied.

Neither story is simple. And most articles online mix them up, which leaves consumers confused about what their actual options are.

Here’s what you’ll learn: the difference between the robocall cases and the warranty cases, what happened in the landmark Baccari dismissal, why CarGuard says third-party callers are not their problem, and what you can realistically do if your repair claim was denied.

One fact most people don’t know: TCPA violations carry statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per illegal call. If a caller rang your phone ten times without consent, that’s up to $15,000 for you alone.

CarGuard Lawsuit: What Is This Legal Battle Actually About?

The CarGuard lawsuit refers to two distinct categories of legal disputes: federal telemarketing law violations tied to unsolicited robocalls, and state-level consumer protection and breach of contract claims tied to denied warranty repairs.

The CarGuard lawsuit refers to multiple consumer and civil lawsuits filed against CarGuard Administration, a company that provides vehicle service contracts commonly known as extended warranties. Most lawsuits allege deceptive marketing, unfair claim denials, or contract misrepresentation.

These are legally separate claims. A TCPA claim is about phone calls you never consented to. A breach of contract claim is about a repair you paid for and were denied.

Both types involve CarGuard. Both are being actively pursued by consumers. But they require different legal strategies and have different potential outcomes.

CarGuard Administration Lawsuit: Who Filed and Why

CarGuard Administration Inc. is a Kansas-based vehicle service contract company headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. It sells extended warranty-style plans marketed under names including Gold Coverage, Platinum Coverage, and Powertrain Coverage.

CarGuard Administration, commonly known as CarGuard, is a Kansas-based company that offers vehicle service contracts. Consumer complaints prompted lawsuits and regulatory investigations accusing the company of using deceptive sales practices and rejecting claims.

The complaints began as scattered reports on consumer review platforms. They then escalated to formal BBB complaints. Then came individual civil claims. And eventually, class action filings.

The plaintiffs alleged that the company, along with its affiliates, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by engaging in unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers. The lawsuit claimed these calls were made without proper consent and often misrepresented the nature of the services offered.

The people filing these lawsuits are everyday car owners. Some received robocalls. Others bought a plan and then watched CarGuard deny every repair they tried to make.

• CarGuard sells plans nationwide through dealer partners and direct telemarketing
• Headquarters: Leawood, Kansas
• Plans marketed: Gold, Platinum, Powertrain, Prepaid Maintenance
• BBB accreditation: Yes, but with significant complaint history
• Consumer review ratings: 1.1 to 1.2 stars across multiple platforms

CarGuard Class Action Lawsuit: Is There an Active Case You Can Join?

There is no currently certified nationwide class action settlement against CarGuard as of early 2026. Consumers who hope to join an existing class and collect money will be disappointed, at least for now.

As of 2025, the CarGuard lawsuit remains active in mediation. Settlement discussions are ongoing, and while no final judgment has been reached, experts expect that a resolution could involve consumer compensation and stronger compliance measures.

That mediation language is vague because the situation is vague. There are active individual lawsuits, active regulatory inquiries, and ongoing BBB complaint processes. But no certified class has been approved by a federal court with a deadline for consumers to file claims.

A class-action lawsuit involved CarGuard Administration, Vehicle Protection Specialists, and AutoProtecht LLC, with multiple entities named as defendants in the robocall litigation.

What that means practically: if you received unsolicited CarGuard robocalls, you may have your own individual TCPA claim worth up to $1,500 per call. If your claim was denied despite valid coverage, you may have an individual breach of contract claim. Neither requires joining a class to pursue.

Key Takeaway: There is no active certified class action settlement open for CarGuard claims in 2026. But individual TCPA and breach of contract claims remain viable paths for affected consumers.

CarGuard TCPA Lawsuit: What Federal Law Was Violated

The TCPA, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, is a federal law passed in 1991 that prohibits companies from making automated calls or sending prerecorded messages to consumers without prior written consent.

The key law in telemarketing in the United States is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which restricts companies from automatically calling, texting, or playing prerecorded messages to consumers without prior consent. TCPA violations can subject violators to damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per call or text in violation, based on whether the conduct was negligent or willful.

Here’s how the TCPA math works. If you received 20 unsolicited CarGuard robocalls, you have a potential TCPA claim worth $10,000 to $30,000 in statutory damages. No actual monetary harm required. The law sets a fixed dollar amount per violation.

As pled in Baccari’s complaint, the facts are straightforward: Baccari had placed his cell phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry. Despite his registration, he began receiving telemarketing calls in late September 2021 about auto warranties. During one of the calls, Baccari asked the person on the other end to identify who he worked for.

TCPA protections are particularly strong for people on the National Do Not Call Registry. Being on the list and still receiving calls is a separately actionable violation.

CarGuard Robocall Lawsuit: What Consumers Actually Experienced

The robocall complaints follow a very consistent pattern. Consumers who had never heard of CarGuard started receiving prerecorded calls about their car’s “expiring warranty.”

Sales representatives told consumers that they were calling on behalf of automobile manufacturers or an official warranty provider, thus misleading people into believing their offer is a direct extension of their current coverage. Some customers have complained of being charged for extended warranties that didn’t cover what was promised, while others have claimed they weren’t able to cancel or get refunds.

That framing is important. Telling someone you are calling from “their car manufacturer’s warranty department” when you are not is misrepresentation. It’s potentially fraud, on top of the TCPA violation.

The plaintiffs said that CarGuard’s telemarketing affiliates made thousands of such calls nationally. The complaint alleges that CarGuard, or its marketers with whom it contracted, called consumers without prior consent and despite being placed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.

The robocall problem is national in scale. The FCC’s record $299,997,000 fine issued against auto warranty scam callers in 2022 reflects how serious federal regulators considered this industry-wide practice.

• Calls used prerecorded voices and auto-dialing systems
• Callers impersonated manufacturer warranty departments
• Consumers on Do Not Call lists were contacted repeatedly
• Consumers who asked to be removed still received calls
• Calls continued across multiple phone numbers

Baccari v. CarGuard: The Landmark Case That Got Dismissed

Baccari v. CarGuard Administration Inc. is the most legally significant CarGuard case to date. It was decided on August 8, 2022, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Judge Wendy Beetlestone. And CarGuard won.

The Wolf’s theory was that CarGuard should be automatically liable because it accepted the benefit of the illegal calls. So CarGuard, armed with a declaration from its CEO, moved to dismiss the case arguing that the conduct of the marketer cannot be fairly traced back to it. After all, CarGuard did not instruct the marketer to engage in outbound phone calls. It specifically told it not to make such calls. And it did not knowingly accept the benefit of the calls. It had no idea the calls were placed until after it had already accepted the contracts.

Think of it this way. A pizza shop hires a delivery driver and tells them not to use their personal car. The driver uses it anyway and causes an accident. Is the pizza shop liable? Probably not, if they expressly prohibited the conduct and had no knowledge it was happening. That is essentially what CarGuard argued, and the court agreed.

The court ruled: “Because Baccari has not met his burden to produce evidence responding to CarGuard’s factual attack, CarGuard’s motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be granted, and the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.”

Case Number: 2:22-cv-01952-WB, E.D. Pennsylvania. Decided: August 8, 2022.

Key Takeaway: The Baccari dismissal was a significant defense victory for CarGuard, but it was decided on Article III standing, not on whether the robocalls happened. The calls happened. CarGuard just successfully argued it didn’t cause them.

CarGuard Vicarious Liability: Why the Company Says It’s Not Responsible

Vicarious liability is the legal doctrine that holds a company responsible for the actions of its agents, contractors, or partners. CarGuard’s core defense against TCPA claims is that it is not vicariously liable for the robocalls made by third-party marketers.

The court found that CarGuard had contractually prohibited its sellers from engaging in telemarketing, and the alleged illegal calls were made without the company’s knowledge. This ruling set a precedent concerning vicarious liability and the responsibilities of companies overseeing third-party marketing activities.

In the Baccari case, CarGuard produced a CEO declaration stating that the marketer was contractually forbidden from making telemarketing calls. The court accepted that evidence as breaking the causal link between CarGuard’s conduct and the plaintiff’s harm.

Courts have examined whether the third party who placed the calls was contractually prohibited from telemarketing on behalf of the defendant. If the defendant can demonstrate that the calling party had no authorization to place those calls, the plaintiff may lack standing to sue the seller whose product was marketed.

This is a powerful defense tool. But it only works if the company has actual written contracts prohibiting telemarketing and no actual knowledge that the calls were happening. Those are factual questions that can be challenged in discovery.

CarGuard Lawsuit Dismissed: What the 2022 Ruling Actually Means

The dismissal of Baccari v. CarGuard in August 2022 does not mean CarGuard was found innocent. It means the specific plaintiff in that case failed to show standing to sue that specific defendant.

The dismissal was without prejudice. The plaintiff could potentially refile with stronger evidence connecting CarGuard to the conduct. The ruling is important for several reasons: it demonstrates that companies can defeat TCPA claims early if they can contractually distance themselves from their marketers’ conduct.

“Without prejudice” is the critical legal phrase. It means the case was not decided on the merits of whether the TCPA was violated. It was dismissed because the plaintiff could not prove CarGuard caused his injury. He can refile with better evidence.

In August 2022, a federal court in Pennsylvania dismissed a class-action lawsuit against CarGuard, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the company. The court found that CarGuard had contractually prohibited its sellers from engaging in telemarketing.

Many consumers read the word “dismissed” and assume CarGuard won on the merits. That is not what happened. The robocalls were real. The victims were real. The dismissal was on a technical procedural ground that could be overcome with better-documented evidence.

• Dismissal basis: Lack of Article III subject matter jurisdiction
• Dismissal type: Without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled
• What was NOT decided: Whether the TCPA was actually violated
• What was decided: Whether CarGuard specifically caused the harm to this plaintiff
• New case filed: Fleming v. CarGuard Administration Inc., W.D. Virginia, 2024

CarGuard Third Party Vendor Liability: The Core Legal Debate

The central legal question in every CarGuard TCPA case is whether a company is responsible for what its marketing partners do when they sell its products illegally.

A notable aspect of the TCPA case was the involvement of third-party vendors, such as Vehicle Protection Specialists and AutoProtecht LLC, who were accused of conducting the telemarketing campaigns on behalf of CarGuard. The plaintiffs contended that CarGuard was liable for the actions of its agents under the doctrine of vicarious liability.

This is the same legal question the FCC and federal courts are wrestling with across the entire extended warranty industry. A company says “don’t make robocalls.” The vendor makes robocalls anyway. The vendor gets paid when consumers buy the product. The company profits. Who is responsible?

For more context, see James Henry Lawsuit 2026: Full Settlement and Claim Guide

The plaintiffs claim that even though CarGuard did not make the calls, it is responsible for the actions of third-party vendors. CarGuard Administration has denied any wrongdoing and said any improper communications may have been the fault of independent marketing firms, not itself.

Courts have reached different conclusions on this. Some grant early dismissal. Others, per the Howell v. SmartMatch case from 2025, allow jurisdictional discovery before ruling. The outcome depends on how clearly the defendant prohibited the calling conduct and whether they genuinely did not know about it.

Key Takeaway: The third-party vendor liability debate is unresolved law. CarGuard successfully used this defense in Baccari, but consumers who can produce evidence that CarGuard knew about or benefited from specific illegal calls may have a stronger argument in future litigation.

CarGuard Extended Warranty Lawsuit: What Customers Were Sold

The extended warranty side of the CarGuard lawsuit is completely separate from the robocall cases. These are consumers who bought a plan, paid their premiums, needed a repair, and were denied.

Some consumers allege they were told CarGuard provided comprehensive coverage, only to discover hidden exclusions. A significant portion of complaints involve denied repair claims, where consumers say legitimate repairs were rejected without explanation. In legal terms, these cases typically allege breach of contract.

CarGuard sells four main coverage tiers: Gold, Platinum, Powertrain, and Prepaid Maintenance. Each has different coverage lists and different exclusion language. The gap between what the salesperson described and what the contract actually covers is where most lawsuits originate.

CarGuard Administration’s coverage plans include Gold Coverage, Platinum Coverage, Powertrain Coverage, and Prepaid Maintenance. The company operates in multiple states and markets itself as providing fair and expedient claims adjudication with best-in-class customer service.

The legal problem is that state consumer protection laws in most jurisdictions require the written contract to govern, not verbal representations made during a sales call. If a salesperson said “everything is covered” but the written contract excludes your specific part, courts often uphold the written terms.

CarGuard Claim Denial Lawsuit: Why Repairs Are Being Rejected

Claim denials are the most common trigger for CarGuard lawsuits filed by individual consumers. The pattern of denials is remarkably consistent across hundreds of complaints.

One consumer described a claim being denied after CarGuard stated the customer “did not take the issue seriously enough.” Another had a dealer call CarGuard and received no adjuster contact for over two months. A third was denied for allegedly missing oil change records spanning specific dates, despite having records for surrounding periods.

The documentation requirement is where most denials happen. CarGuard’s contracts require customers to maintain verifiable service records. If records are incomplete, even partially, the company can deny the claim.

CarGuard’s review of service records noted missing pages for specific service dates, and the company informed the consumer that without those records, it could not move forward with the claim.

This feels like a technicality. And legally, it is. But courts are split on whether using missing paperwork to deny a clearly covered mechanical failure constitutes bad faith claims handling. That question is the basis of most active individual lawsuits.

• Denial reason 1: Missing maintenance records for specific dates
• Denial reason 2: Oil change interval exceeded (even by 2,000 miles)
• Denial reason 3: Part deemed not covered under contract definitions
• Denial reason 4: Failure alleged to be pre-existing condition
• Denial reason 5: Repair facility deemed out of network

CarGuard Breach of Contract Lawsuit: When Denials Become Legal Claims

A breach of contract claim against CarGuard begins when a consumer can show they paid for coverage, the covered event occurred, documentation was provided, and CarGuard still refused to pay.

Allegations of unfair denial of claims and delayed repairs have been central to consumer cases. Consumers claim the company failed to provide the services promised in their contracts. Some customers have accused CarGuard of engaging in unfair billing practices, including charging hidden fees or offering refunds far below what was initially promised. These actions can violate consumer protection laws designed to ensure transparency and fairness in financial transactions.

Breach of contract cases against extended warranty companies are typically filed in state civil court or small claims court. They do not require an attorney, though having one significantly increases the chance of recovery.

One consumer filed a breach of contract claim after CarGuard denied a water pump repair despite a smoke test and antifreeze on the pump proving it was leaking. The consumer obtained reimbursement on one prior denied claim by documenting the contradiction between CarGuard’s verbal denial reason and the written contract terms. The consumer stated the only people who see the inspector’s report are the warranty company, meaning they can allege anything they want without independent verification.

That last point is legally significant. A claims adjuster report that is never shared with the consumer is difficult to challenge. Courts increasingly consider this lack of transparency when evaluating whether a denial was made in good faith.

Key Takeaway: If your CarGuard claim was denied, request the written denial reason, compare it to your contract’s exact language, and document any discrepancy. That gap between what CarGuard says and what your contract says is the foundation of a breach of contract case.

CarGuard Deceptive Marketing Lawsuit: What the Sales Calls Actually Said

Deceptive marketing claims go beyond just the robocall TCPA violation. They target the content of what was said during the call and whether it constituted consumer fraud.

Sales representatives told consumers that they were calling on behalf of automobile manufacturers or an official warranty provider, thus misleading people into believing their offer is a direct extension of their current coverage. The content of those calls was misleading, consumers claim.

Saying you are calling from a manufacturer’s warranty department when you are not is a false statement of material fact. Under FTC Act Section 5, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in commerce, that kind of statement during a sales call can constitute a violation separate from the TCPA issue.

Urgency can be added within telemarketing scripts by implying that coverage will run out. Some sales calls reported that representatives implied coverage was expiring imminently, which prompted consumers to act without fully reading the contract terms.

Creating false urgency is another recognized deceptive practice. Telling someone their warranty expires this week when it does not is the kind of high-pressure tactic the FTC specifically monitors in the warranty industry.

• Deceptive claim 1: Caller implied manufacturer affiliation
• Deceptive claim 2: Described coverage as “comprehensive” without disclosing exclusions
• Deceptive claim 3: Created false urgency about warranty expiration
• Deceptive claim 4: Did not disclose deductibles, limits, or key exclusions during sales call
• Legal basis: FTC Act Section 5, state deceptive trade practice statutes

CarGuard BBB Complaints and Consumer Complaints: The Paper Trail

The BBB complaint history for CarGuard Administration Inc. is among the most important evidence in any litigation against the company. It demonstrates a pattern of conduct, not isolated incidents.

As of August 2025, the BBB’s records indicate a significant number of unresolved issues related to the company’s services.

The BBB complaints tell a consistent story. A consumer buys a plan believing it covers their car comprehensively. The car breaks. CarGuard requires maintenance documentation. The documentation is incomplete, inaccurate, or disputed. The claim is denied. The consumer escalates.

Consumer review platforms report frequent claim denials citing loopholes and inconsistent interpretation of coverage, problems with refunds and billing where refunds were delayed or returned by banks, and poor customer service with slow or misleading responses on claims and cancellations.

In legal terms, patterns matter. A judge or jury evaluating a bad faith claims handling case will find a long BBB complaint record highly relevant to whether the company’s denials were systematic rather than case-by-case decisions.

Here’s something related: Taxotere Lawsuit Law Firm: How to Find the Right One 2026

Consumer reviews across platforms describe the company as finding loopholes to deny claims, asking for service receipts that have nothing to do with the problem in the claim, and not complying with definitions in the warranty contract.

Filing a BBB complaint is also a formal record. If you later sue CarGuard, having a dated BBB complaint establishes you raised the issue with the company before filing suit.

CarGuard Settlement: Has the Case Been Resolved?

There is no publicly confirmed class action settlement covering CarGuard customers in 2026. Consumers who believe they can file a claim and receive a check from an existing settlement fund should know: that fund does not exist yet.

Settlement discussions are ongoing, and while no final judgment has been reached, experts expect that a resolution could involve consumer compensation and stronger compliance measures.

Also worth exploring: Live Olympics Lawsuit 2026: Settlement and Filing Update

Individual cases do settle. CarGuard resolves some complaints informally through BBB mediation. Some individual civil claims reach private settlements. But there is no public court-approved settlement that affected consumers can participate in as of March 2026.

Some courts have dismissed cases for lack of evidence, while others have resulted in settlements, reflecting the gray area often present in service contract disputes.

For consumers who want to pursue recovery, the options right now are: filing an individual TCPA claim for robocalls received without consent, pursuing a small claims or civil court breach of contract claim for denied repairs, or filing a formal complaint with your state attorney general’s office or the FTC.

CarGuard Lawsuit Update 2026: Where Things Stand Right Now

As of early 2026, the CarGuard legal situation involves three parallel tracks: the aftermath of the Baccari dismissal precedent, ongoing individual warranty dispute litigation, and heightened regulatory scrutiny.

As of now, the lawsuit remains active, with legal proceedings ongoing and administrative reviews underway. Regulators are reportedly examining whether marketing materials accurately described coverage terms and whether CarGuard complied with state or federal consumer protection rules.

The Fleming v. CarGuard Administration Inc. case filed in the Western District of Virginia in January 2024 (Case 6:2024cv00057) represents the latest federal TCPA filing against the company. That case was last docketed in January 2025 and remains active.

The outcome of the CarGuard lawsuit and accompanying administrative reviews could have broader implications for the automotive protection industry. Increased regulatory scrutiny often signals a wider enforcement trend, reminding companies of the importance of clear disclosures and ethical marketing practices.

On the consumer side, BBB complaints and Trustpilot reviews from 2025 into early 2026 show no slowdown in claim denial issues. New complaints are being filed at a consistent pace.

• Fleming v. CarGuard: W.D. Virginia, Case 6:2024cv00057, active as of January 2025
• Baccari dismissal precedent: Remains cited in similar third-party TCPA defenses nationwide
• State regulatory reviews: Multiple states reportedly examining CarGuard’s marketing practices
• BBB complaint activity: Active and ongoing through 2025 and into 2026
• Class action certification: No certified national class as of March 2026

Key Takeaway: The CarGuard legal story in 2026 is not over. Federal cases are active, state investigations are underway, and individual consumers are filing claims in small claims and civil courts. The absence of a class settlement does not mean the absence of legal options.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the CarGuard lawsuit about?

The CarGuard lawsuit involves two distinct categories of claims: TCPA violations for unsolicited automated robocalls, and breach of contract claims for denied warranty repairs.

The TCPA cases allege that CarGuard’s marketing affiliates called consumers without consent, including those on the National Do Not Call Registry.

The warranty cases allege that CarGuard denied legitimate repair claims through documentation requirements and exclusion interpretations that contradict the terms consumers were sold.

Was the CarGuard TCPA class action lawsuit dismissed?

Yes, the Baccari v. CarGuard Administration Inc. case (Case 2:22-cv-01952-WB) was dismissed on August 8, 2022, by Judge Wendy Beetlestone in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled with stronger evidence, and was decided on Article III standing grounds, not on whether the TCPA was actually violated.

A new TCPA case, Fleming v. CarGuard Administration Inc., was filed in the Western District of Virginia in 2024 and remains active.

Can I sue CarGuard for denying my warranty claim?

Yes. If CarGuard denied a repair that falls within the written terms of your contract, you have grounds to file a breach of contract claim in state civil court or small claims court.

The strongest cases document the denial reason in writing, compare it directly to the contract language, and preserve all repair estimates, dealer communications, and maintenance records.

Filing a BBB complaint before or during litigation also creates a documented record that strengthens your case.

How much can I get from a CarGuard TCPA lawsuit?

TCPA violations carry statutory damages of $500 per call for standard violations and up to $1,500 per call for willful violations.

If you received 10 unsolicited CarGuard robocalls without your consent, you potentially have a claim worth $5,000 to $15,000.

You do not need to prove actual monetary harm. The statutory damages exist regardless of whether you bought anything or suffered a financial loss.

Is CarGuard still operating in 2026?

Yes, CarGuard Administration Inc. continues to operate as of early 2026, selling vehicle service contracts through dealers and direct marketing channels.

The company has publicly stated it complies with all applicable laws and points to a CEO declaration in the Baccari case as evidence it prohibited telemarketing by its third-party vendors.

Active lawsuits, BBB complaints, and state regulatory reviews are ongoing, but no court has ordered CarGuard to cease operations or revoke its licenses.

What You Should Do Right Now

If you received unsolicited CarGuard robocalls, document every call you can remember: the date, the time, what was said, and what number called you. That documentation is the foundation of a TCPA claim worth up to $1,500 per call.

If your CarGuard repair claim was denied, request the written denial reason immediately. Compare it word for word to your actual contract. File a BBB complaint to create a formal record.

Watch the Fleming v. CarGuard case in the Western District of Virginia. If that case proceeds to class certification, it could open a filing window for consumers nationwide. Stay current with the court docket.

Don't miss this — Fox Lawsuit 2026: Every Active Case and What’s at Stake

This is also helpful — Disney Lawsuit 2026: What It Is and How to Get Paid

A closely related topic: Shocking Entertainment Lawsuit 2026: Claims and Payouts

Never Miss a Lawsuit Update

Mark Lawfold as a Preferred Source so you never miss a settlement deadline or new filing.