Legal

UPDATE: Supreme Court Did Not Issue Ruling on Tariffs Case, Decision Still Pending

Wed, 14 Jan 2026 13:45:24 GMT

UPDATE: The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to release its ruling on President Trump’s global tariffs Wednesday. A decision is still pending.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue one or more rulings on Wednesday in cases already argued before the justices as major legal disputes remain pending, including litigation testing the legality of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.

The court is set to release rulings at about 10 a.m. ET (1500 GMT). The court does not announce ahead of time which rulings it intends to issue. The court issued one ruling last Friday but did not act in the tariffs case, which was argued on Nov. 5.

The challenge to Trump’s tariffs marks a major test of presidential powers as well as of the court’s willingness to check some of the Republican president’s far-reaching assertions of authority since he returned to office in January 2025. The outcome will impact the global economy.

During arguments in the case, conservative and liberal justices appeared to cast doubt on the legality of the tariffs, which Trump imposed by invoking a 1977 law meant for use during national emergencies. Trump’s administration is appealing rulings by lower courts that he overstepped his authority.

Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods imported from individual countries — nearly every foreign trading partner — to address what he called a national emergency related to U.S. trade deficits. He invoked the same law to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, citing the trafficking of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl and illicit drugs into the U.S. as a national emergency.

The challenges to the tariffs in the cases before the Supreme Court were brought by businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 U.S. states, most of them Democratic-governed.

Other cases awaiting rulings include disputes concerning voting rights, religious rights, Trump’s firing of a Federal Trade Commission member, LGBT “conversion therapy” and campaign finance limits, among others.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

Could EPA Decision Signal The Beginning Of The End For DEF?

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:26:25 GMT

Mike Berdo has strong words to describe his ongoing experiences using machinery requiring DEF ( Diesel Exhaust Fluid ) on his southeast Iowa farm.

“It has been an absolute nightmare, at least for us. Mechanics make trip after trip to do little stuff that’s very expensive to fix,” said Berdo, who produces grain and beef cattle near Washington. “We had planting delays last spring … little stuff that came from it and just seemed like [an issue to deal with] day after day.”

The ongoing mechanical issues and costs are why Berdo said he is “all for” EPA rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The Finding has enabled the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and, in recent years, and launch requirements such as the use of DEF systems in diesel-powered engines.

EPA Draws A Line In The Sand
On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a proposal to rescind the 2009 Finding.

If finalized, the proposal would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, EPA said in a follow-up press release .

The move would start with EPA’s first greenhouse gas standard set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles and those set in 2011 for medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles and engines.

EPA said the proposal is expected to “save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards, including the Biden EPA’s electric vehicle mandate, under conservative economic forecasts.”

Zeldin made the announcement to rescind the Finding in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

What The Decision Could Mean To Farmers
Specific to U.S. farmers, the proposal could potentially result in DEF systems no longer being included on new tractors and other heavy equipment using diesel-powered engines, said Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk, during a Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday.

South Dakota farmer Ryan Wagner told Flory he has a wait-and-see perspective on how or whether the EPA proposal goes into effect. He anticipates that reversing the Finding will take considerable time and effort for EPA to implement.

“It took a long time with the interim engines and things to get into full DEF in the first place,” Wagner said. “I don’t know how long it would take to unwind all that and how quickly manufacturing will just take those systems right off, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens.”

To Wagner’s point, here’s a brief look back at some timing showing when DEF rolled out in agriculture and nonroad equipment and became mandatory . The regulations were phased in over several years based on the type of equipment and engine size:

2008: DEF became required for all new diesel engines with engine sizes over 750 horsepower.

2011: the regulations expanded to include equipment with engine sizes between 175-750 horsepower.

By 2015, all new nonroad diesel engines were required to be Tier 4 compliant and utilize DEF, regardless of equipment type or engine size.

As Wagner considers DEF, he noted its use in diesel engines has provided him with one benefit: “On the plus side, I do like that they don’t make the walls of my shop black. That’s been nice,” he said. “You can run them inside for a short time and not not feel like you’re breathing in a bunch of soot and making everything black.”

Expect Legal Challenges To EPA Decision
A number of environmental groups have already blasted the move by EPA, saying it spells the end of the road for U.S. action against climate change, according to an online article by Reuters .

Legal challenges from various environmental groups, states and lawyers are likely ahead.

That fact wasn’t lost on Flory and the Farmer Forum participants during the AgriTalk discussion on Wednesday.

“If this proposal is finalized, it’s going to start a lot of conversations … and the dominoes are going to start to fall, something that we need to keep track of, no doubt,” Flory said. You can hear the complete Farmer Forum discussion on AgriTalk here:

EPA will initiate a public comment period to solicit input. Further information on the public comment process and instructions for participation will be published in the Federal Register and on the EPA website .

Your next read: Right To Repair Granted? John Deere Launches Digital Self-Repair Tool for $195 Per Tractor

Trump Suggests Farmers Could Petition to Keep Workers Without Legal Status

Fri, 11 Apr 2025 14:29:25 GMT

U.S. President Donald Trump suggested on Thursday that farmers will be able to petition the federal government to retain some farmworkers in the U.S. illegally, provided the workers leave the country and return with legal status.

Trump’s comments during his Cabinet meeting are, though vague, the most detail the administration has provided on the fate of the nation’s farmworkers without legal status — who make up half the farm sector’s workforce — under his plan for mass deportations.

Farm industry groups have warned that deporting large numbers of agricultural workers would grind the food system to a halt. In addition to farming, many workers without legal status are also employed in the meat and dairy industries.

“We’re going to work with farmers that, if they have strong recommendations for their farms, for certain people, that we’re going to let them stay in for a while and work with the farmers and then come back and go through a process, a legal process. We have to take care of our farmers and hotels and various places where they need the people,” Trump said.

“A farmer will come in with a letter concerning certain people saying, they’re great, they’re working hard, we’re going to slow it down a little bit for them and then we’re going to ultimately bring them back. They’ll go out, they’re going to come back as legal workers,” he said.

The White House and the Department of Agriculture did not respond to requests to clarify the policy or when it will be implemented.

During his first administration, Trump promised the farm sector that deportations would not affect agricultural workers, but has made no such promise in this term.

Immigrant farmworkers prepared for the Trump administration by assigning guardians to their children in the case of their detention and taking other precautions.

(Reporting by Jeff Mason and Leah Douglas in Washington; Editing by Bill Berkrot)

Heads Up: Corporate Transparency Act Still in Limbo

Fri, 27 Dec 2024 19:49:00 GMT

The ongoing legal battle over the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting requirements has seen significant developments in the past month:

Dec. 3: A nationwide injunction against the CTA was issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Dec. 23: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction, reinstating the CTA.
Dec. 26: The Fifth Circuit vacated its earlier stay, potentially reinstating the injunction.

What Does This Mean for Farmers?
The if and when regarding BOI reporting is unknown, but should the CTA be upheld, here’s what we know.

Corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), limited partnerships (LP) or any entities created by filing a document with a secretary of state must file online reports to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCen) , disclosing information about the beneficial owners of the entities. The following information is required:

legal name
current street address
the state in charge of its filing requirements
taxpayer identification number

As of Dec. 27, entities in existence before Jan. 1, 2024, now have until Jan. 13, 2025, to make their first BOI report. However, the Jan. 13 deadline might change based on court outcomes. Entities created or registered in 2024 have 90 days from creation to get their first reports filed.

Conflicting rulings make it difficult for entities to determine next steps. A final decision is expected soon, but the timeline remains unpredictable.

In the meantime, monitor legal and regulatory updates closely, and prepare for compliance by drafting BOI reports to ensure readiness if the CTA is upheld.

4 Quick Succession Planning Tips With Attorney Jim Angell

Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:46:39 GMT

A farm’s succession plan is complex. And with ever-changing laws and family dynamics, it can be hard to make sure everything gets taken care of in the process. Kansas attorney Jim Angell recently joined the Top Producer podcast to share four things you should consider for your operation’s transition.

1. Trusts For Gifting
The IRS Lifetime Gift Tax Exemption is currently $13.6 million, but there’s speculation that limit could be cut in half in 2026. If you’re going to be gifting a considerable amount before the end of next year, there are two types of trusts he recommends putting in place.

“We might use an entity, an LLC or Limited Partnership, and do some transfer gifting on that,” Angell says. “Or, we could use what’s called an Intentially Defective Trust. That allows you to maintain the income at the first level, freeze the assets and pass those on to the next generation. We use that quite a bit.”

2. Include Your CPA
Angell says your CPA is a more valuable asset in this process than you may think.

“One of the first things I do is if I don’t have the CPA in the first meeting, I make darn sure the CPA is in the second meeting,” he says. “The clients are out there grinding, surviving, and doing what they do best on the farm. The CPA professionals have a much better understanding [of the overall finances] generally, and so we rely on them very heavily in doing the advanced tax planning.”

3. There’s No Such Thing As One Size Fits All Succession Planning
It’s important to remember fair isn’t always equal, especially in situations with on-farm and off-farm children.

“We’ve got to find a way to keep the farm intact and transition it potentially to to the farming child, but at the same time be fair to the remaining heirs,” Angell says. “That farming child may end up with more equity, but they’re going to end up with a bigger challenge of the debt, worrying about drought, making the operation work, taking the risk and taking the lower return. So, when you really step back and look at it, if you’re looking at it economically, some of these children that are getting less value after the estate is fully settled are really better off in the short run.”

4. Set Up Protection From Unintended Beneficiaries
In some situations, a parent will remarry after the other passes away. Angell says it’s important to make sure this doesn’t have an unfortunate outcome for the farm children.

“Most estate plans, especially the larger ones, are going to need some protections built in there for at least a certain portion of those assets being held in an irrevocable trust upon the first death,” he says. “We try to push a pre-nuptual agreement and get the kids involved in for when dad does decide to remarry. Those situations can potentially tear families apart and the farm apart.”

Hear more from Angell on the Top Producer podcast

NPPC Leads Defense of Producers’ Freedom to Farm

Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:59:45 GMT

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) led livestock and farm groups in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to fight back against activist attacks on pork producers’ fundamental due process rights and the regulatory foundation of modern livestock production.

Earlier this year, a large number of national and state activist groups, led by Food & Water Watch (including Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network) filed a lawsuit before the Court against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Biden Administration.

These groups seek fundamental changes to EPA’s concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) rules, including that the law should presume pig and other livestock farmers are discharging pollutants into Waters of the United States (WOTUS) in violation of the Clean Water Act. They have asked the court to remove application of the long established and congressionally developed exemption for agricultural stormwater from animal feeding operations and instead require all CAFOs to either obtain Clean Water Act permits or provide evidence that they are not discharging into a WOTUS.

If successful, this lawsuit would upend livestock environmental regulations around the country, causing millions of dollars of lawsuits, fines, and challenges — setting the industry back decades.

NPPC, along with the American Farm Bureau Federation, the U.S. Poultry and Egg Federation, and the United Egg Producers, have intervened in the litigation in defense of the Biden Administration and the long-standing regulations that have shaped modern pig farming.

The farm groups filed their opening brief defending EPA, its longstanding CAFO rules, and the important victories that NPPC secured before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005 and before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 to defend the integrity of modern pig farming.

NPPC’s Take

The pork industry has decades of success in addressing environmental challenges. Pork producers are leaders in maximizing the efficient use of valuable manure resources to continuously improve on-farm performance and sustainability.

Pork producers have a long, successful working relationship with federal, state, and local regulators to ensure their farms are constructed and maintained as zero-discharge operations. Major changes to long-standing federal laws can only come from congressional action, and it is inappropriate for these activist groups to seek to rewrite federal law through the courts when Congress has consistently rejected their outlandish demands.

Why it Matters

This baseless lawsuit, filed by extreme activists, seeks to upend livestock production. By attacking core notions of due process and fundamental civil rights, these activists and their financial backers in national class-action law firms seek to put pork producers around the country at risk of the same types of unfounded predatory lawsuits that previously caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to livestock farmers just a few years ago.

NPPC Asks Court: Lift Gag Order In N.C. Nuisance Suits

Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:12:08 GMT

The National Pork Producers Council and the North Carolina Pork Council Monday evening filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of lifting a judge’s gag order on communications related to nuisance lawsuits filed against more than two dozen North Carolina hog farms.

Judge Earl Britt, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, in late June imposed the gag order on the parties, lawyers and potential witnesses in lawsuits brought against Murphy-Brown, the hog production subsidiary of Smithfield Foods. The judge said a “significant increase in trial publicity” and the “volume and scope of prejudicial publicity” about the first two cases – one decided in early May and the other two days after the gag order was implemented – could taint future jurors.

NPPC and NCPC filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., asking that it grant Murphy-Brown’s petition to vacate the District Court’s prior restraint on speech, noting that “All but the most carefully crafted, narrow gag orders are unconstitutional.”

The pork organizations argued that there is no compelling need for the gag order, the District Court did not consider alternatives to the order – including the jury selection process or jury instructions – the order is overbroad and vague, and it won’t be effective. On the latter point, they said it’s “not reasonable to think that any gag order will reduce coverage of these cases or blunt the public’s interest” in them.

In fact, there has been extensive coverage of the lawsuits from media outlets in the state and around the country and from advocacy groups and people outside the scope of the gag order.

“The greatest risk of [jury] prejudice,” NPPC and NCPC argued, “isn’t the existence of publicity; it is the existence of one-sided publicity that has resulted from the gag order. …”

“As we pointed out in our friend-of-the-court brief, this gag order has had a chilling effect on all hog farmers in North Carolina,” said NPPC President Jim Heimerl, a pork producer from Ohio. “As potential witnesses, they’re prohibited from saying anything about or defending their operations, while those opposed to hog farming are free to attack those farmers in the press.”

In three of the nuisance cases decided over the past three months, including one last week, juries have levied a combined $99 million in compensatory and punitive damages against family farmers over noise and odors from their hog farms. A total of 26 lawsuits have been filed.

Accidents Happen. Don't Lose the Farm Because of Them

Fri, 27 Jan 2023 18:04:27 GMT

It’s well after lunch, mid-afternoon at an all-day grower meeting, but the 20-plus farmers sitting on metal folding chairs arranged in a half circle are focused intently on the speaker in front of them.

“Only 50% to 60% of farmers going down the road hauling a load of hay, driving a semi with grain or some other piece of equipment are doing so legally,” Fred Whitford tells them.

He pauses momentarily, reflects on what he’s just said, then nods his head: “Yeah, I’m pretty comfortable that’s true. It doesn’t take much to be at fault; it could be as simple as driving on bald tires.”

The farmers look around at each other nervously as Whitford builds on his initial comment.

“If I don’t have grooves in my tires I can’t move water, and I can hydroplane. When I go to brake, I don’t have braking power and the truck won’t stop.…What then?”

Maybe the truck just ends up in a ditch. At the other extreme, the driver has a major accident with a motorist that causes death or life-long incapacitation.

It’s not uncommon. Data from the past decade show that while only 19 of every 100 Americans live in rural areas, more than 50% of all fatal roadway accidents take place there, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

It’s a heavy topic, but Whitford wades into it, intent on helping the farmers present prepare for if or when calamity strikes.

Pitfalls To Avoid
One common problem is farmers tend to have insufficient insurance, says Whitford, Clinical Engagement Professor, Botany and Plant Pathology and Director of Pesticide Programs at Purdue University.

“Say you have $2 million dollars of liability coverage, which roughly covers your net worth. One of your vehicles is involved in an accident that causes the death of a child.

The jury awards the child’s parents $5 million. Your insurance company would only be responsible for covering the first $2 million, while you would be responsible for the remaining $3 million,” he says. “That could bankrupt your business.”

Whitford brings up another common issue he sees.

“Who has their farm in an LLC?” he asks the group.

A couple of farmers raise their hands. Most are studying the floor. One mumbles that his land and equipment are in a single corporation.

“Well, sir, that’s not a good idea,” Whitford politely tells the farmer. “I can go into the corporation, get all the insurance money and then I can sell the land. I see it happen all the time.”

Whitford tells the farmer to go home and put his land in a corporation separate from his equipment. “You want to protect the one asset that brings you income,” he advises.

“This is why investing the time with an attorney is so vital.”

Whitford also encourages the group to meet with their insurance agent. “Ask them some questions, like ‘How much am I covered for? And what does that mean?’”

Insurance agents often tell Whitford that when they ask their farm clients to come in for an annual review many don’t even return their calls. “Not getting your annual insurance review is lost opportunity to protect your assets,” he says.

He acknowledges a basic insurance policy for the farm is pricey, and there’s no escaping the expense.

However, additional coverage beyond the basic policy is often available at a more palatable rate. Sometimes referred to as an umbrella policy, it provides additional protection that could literally save the farm.

“It often adds $5 million, $10 million of protection on top of your basic policy and at a discounted rate, but insurance agents often don’t bring it up because they know the odds of you buying it are slim,” Whitford says.

Talk, Listen, Act

As part of your annual meeting with your insurance agent, don’t hold back, Whitford tells the farmers in the room.

“Get your agent’s best advice, discuss all of the possible insurance options, then make the best decisions for you and your farm regarding coverage and policy limits,” he says.

While most farmers believe insurance is important, few read their policies. It’s true that an insurance policy is tedious reading, but making an effort to understand what is (and what is not) covered is important.

“After you suffer a loss, it will be too late to make any changes,” Whitford says. “Even if you don’t personally read your policy, at least develop a list of questions you want your insurance agent or attorney to answer.”

More Information Available

Fred Whitford is the author of more than 300 publications. Two of his recent ones are:

The Aftermath of a Farm Truck Crash: Lawsuits, Settlements, and Court Proceedings

Farm Truck Accidents: Considering Your Liability Management Options

Could the Nuisance Cases in North Carolina Happen in My State?

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:15:31 GMT

More than two dozen nuisance cases have been filed by residents in North Carolina against Murphy-Brown, the live growout subsidiary of Smithfield Foods. So far, the juries have returned three cases to the tune of $50 million, $25 million and $473.5 million. Twenty-three more cases are scheduled, drawing international attention to the southwest portion of the state.

In addition to the immediate impact of the cases and what they might mean for North Carolina hog producers, it raises understandable concerns over whether similar cases could be filed in other states. Here’s a brief breakdown of the major issues in the cases:

What are the cases about? Plaintiffs’ attorneys have recruited more than 500 plaintiffs to file lawsuits against Murphy-Brown. The lawsuits allege Murphy-Brown’s pigs are raised on operations that negatively impact the plaintiffs’ enjoyment and use of their property due to odors and flies from the barns, lagoons and manure application. The plaintiffs also allege the operations are negligent because they use open-air lagoons and apply manure through spraying, both of which are common agricultural practices in the Southeast.
The judge has divided the plaintiffs into 26 trial groups and set a goal of trying one case per month. The next trial is slated for November.

What about the Right to Farm Act? Each state has a different Right to Farm law, and courts interpret them differently, but these odor nuisance cases are exactly what Right to Farm laws were intended to prevent. The thinking behind Right to Farm laws is dust and odors are a fact of life on agricultural operations and neighbors who move into agricultural areas should not be able to sue them over the sounds, smells and traffic that typically accompany farming.
In these cases, the judge held North Carolina’s Right to Farm Act did not bar the plaintiff’s lawsuits. The judge’s decision is especially perplexing because North Carolina’s act is particularly strong and intended to protect operations that make significant changes, such as moving from crops to livestock or adding confinement houses.

What about the farmers? The operations targeted in the lawsuit are operated by family farms under contract with Murphy-Brown. However, the plaintiffs have not named any of the farmers in their cases. This strategy allows the plaintiffs’ attorneys to pit the jury solely against a large corporation. This does not mean farmers will not be affected, though. Smithfield is likely to end their contracts on operations where the jury finds a nuisance exists—a devastating result for these family operations that have so much of their lives, assets and futures tied into hog farming.

Could this happen in my state? It depends. Even though North Carolina’s punitive damage law will significantly reduce the amount of damages owed, these eye-popping verdicts are likely to motivate plaintiffs’ attorneys to try similar cases in other states. However, the judge in these cases has made several decisions that could be overturned on appeal and might result in the plaintiffs walking away with nothing.

Nuisance cases are decided under state law, which means outcomes would likely vary based on the state where the case is tried.

After an initial refusal, the judge overseeing the cases recently paused the trial schedule to allow the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to examine matters raised by Murphy-Brown in an appeal. This could result in tossing out the plaintiffs cases or a retrial. In the meantime, I expect state legislatures will be taking a close look at updating their Right to Farm laws.

Watch a video of North Carolina hog farmer Joey Carter talk about the impact the lawsuit has had on him and his family.

Avoid Next-Door Drama

Wed, 18 Nov 2020 16:47:41 GMT

As a responsible farmer you take steps in your business not only to produce the best, highest-quality crop you can, but also to protect the health of the land or the welfare of your livestock on a daily basis. But in doing so, you may still have neighbors who aren’t happy with your operation’s impact on their lives, whether it be true or a misperception. Over time, disgruntled feelings have the potential to fester into lawsuits against your farm. Here are a few ways to practice good neighbor hygiene, and how to handle it should you find yourself facing a lawsuit.

Check in with neighbors. A quick check-in can head off issues by providing an opportunity for two-way dialog. Contacting your neighbor periodically in general and alerting them of upcoming changes to your business plan gives them an opportunity to share any issues or concerns relating to your farm that you may be unaware of.

“If a neighbor who already has some concerns about your farm—potentially unexpressed concerns—suddenly sees backhoes show up at your property, they’re going to be nervous and curious what’s going on over there. If they’ve had issues with odor or insects before, they’re going to naturally assume the worst,” says Chad Blomberg, JD, of Lathrop GPM . “That may not be true at all. Instead, you may be adding something to the farm that will make things better or you may be adding new technology. To help alleviate these concerns your neighbors might have, talk to them and help dispel misinformation about what’s going on.”

Evaluate your practices. The legal standard for a nuisance claim is unreasonable land use, so a farmer has to act reasonably in developing and implementing farm practices, and stay up to date on available technologies, equipment and management practices, says Jennifer Griffin, JD, of Lathrop GPM .

“Nearly every state has Right to Farm statutes that provide some form of protection against nuisance suits. But some states’ statutes—like Missouri’s—say that the expansion or new practice cannot create a substantially adverse effect on the environment or create a hazard to public health or safety,” she notes.

Educate your community. Building an understanding of farming practices, including the fact that your farm operates under a permit that is monitored by state and meets all requirements to continue operation can also be key in staving off lawsuits.

“Public education of members of the community can be useful in avoiding litigation and helping to mitigate misconceptions (or misinformation) about farming practices,” Blomberg and Griffin say. “Many types of information (e.g., permitting, regulatory requirements, your periodic reports) are public records, and can be shared or communicated with the community, including neighbors and others in the community who have relationships with them.”

What to do if you get served with a lawsuit.

Do you know what to do should you find yourself in a legal dispute with a neighbor? “Though catching up over a cup of coffee can go a long way in building relationships over time, after a lawsuit has been filed, the opportunity for casual conversation disappears,” says Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, JD, associate professor & extension specialist of agricultural law at Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service. At that point, anything you say could be used against you in court and could hurt you in the long run. Once you’ve been served, you need to find legal counsel to represent you.

Don’t put insurance policies on autopilot. Blomberg, Griffin and Lashmet all agree that one of the most important steps in fighting a lawsuit is to get in touch with your insurance carrier and talk over your coverage. It is crucially important to review coverage on an annual basis and stay away from auto-renewal year after year, they say. Policies can change, and you may not be covered for what you thought you were 10 years ago.

Find resources to help you. While it may be tempting to represent yourself, it is easy to underestimate the complexity of the issues and the time it can take to resolve a suit, and it will benefit you to have expert help.

“The best-case scenario is that you’ve got an insurance company that provides you a defense. They hire you an attorney and the attorney steps in and takes over representing you,” Lashmet says. “The first phone call I would make is to my insurance company to find out if we’ve got an event for which an attorney would be provided. If not, I would recommend to anybody who’s facing a lawsuit, at least consult with an attorney to figure out what’s going on, whether it’s worth hiring someone, and determine how serious it is.”