Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies: The Company is a party to legal proceedings with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below. With respect to ongoing matters, the Company is unable, at the present time, to determine the ultimate resolution of or provide a reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss attributable to these matters or the impact they may have on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows. This is primarily because the matters are generally in early stages and discovery has either not commenced or been completed. Although the Company believes it has strong defenses and intends to vigorously defend these matters, the Company could in the future incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Intellicorp Records, Inc. Litigation On September 9, 2015, the Company was served with a nationwide putative class action complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County in Ohio naming the Company’s subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc. (“Intellicorp”) titled Sherri Legrand v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. and The Cato Corporation et al. Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on October 8, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on November 5, 2015 (“Amended Complaint”), which like the prior complaint claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and alleges two putative class claims against Intellicorp, namely (i) a section 1681k(a) claim on behalf of all individuals who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Intellicorp, which contained public record information in the “Government Sanctions” section of the report on or after September 4, 2013 and continuing through the date the class list is prepared, and (ii) a section 1681e(b) claim on behalf of all individuals who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Intellicorp, which contained public record information in the “Government Sanctions” section of the report where the address or social security number of the subject of the report do not match the social security number or address contained in the government database on or after September 4, 2013 and continuing through the date the class list is prepared. Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges that defendant Cato violated the FCRA by procuring consumer reports on the plaintiff and other class members without making the stand-alone disclosure required by FCRA section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Counts II and III allege that Intellicorp violated the FCRA section 1681e (b) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy of the adverse information included in its consumer reports and FCRA section 1681k (a) by failing to maintain strict procedures to assure that the public record information reported, which was likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer was complete and up to date, respectively. The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants acted willfully and seeks statutory damages for the classes in an amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and attorney’s fees. On April 24, 2017, the parties agreed to resolve the litigation in a Settlement Agreement and Release and plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement on the same day. The settlement provides for a non-material cash payment by the Company, as well as certain non-monetary relief. The District Court granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval on April 25, 2017. Xactware Solutions, Inc. Patent Litigation On October 8, 2015, the Company was served with a summons and complaint in an action titled Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Group, Inc. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the Company’s Roof InSight, Property InSight and Aerial Sketch products infringe seven patents owned by Eagle View and Pictometry namely, Patent Nos. 436, 840, 152, 880, 770, 732 and 454 (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”). On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding Patent Nos. 376 and 737 to the Patents in Suit. The First Amended Complaint seeks an entry of judgment by the Court that defendants have and continue to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe, by way of inducement the Patents-in-Suit, permanent injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney’s fees. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter. Interthinx, Inc. Litigation On April 20, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action titled John Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. The plaintiff, a former employee of the Company’s former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in Missouri, filed the class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of all review appraisers and individuals holding comparable positions with different titles who were employed by Interthinx for the last three years nationwide and who were not paid overtime wages. The class complaint claims that the review appraiser employees were misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads a Collective Action under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of Interthinx, Inc. The parties agreed to resolve this matter with the Company’s contribution of a non-material amount in the Class Action Settlement Agreement executed on November 8, 2016. For settlement purposes only, this matter was consolidated with a related action pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court in which the Company is not a party, titled Sager v. Interthinx. On February 21, 2017, the Los Angeles Superior Court approved the settlement at the preliminary approval hearing and the final approval hearing is scheduled for June 15, 2017. Insurance Services Office, Inc. Litigation ACORD Matter On August 1, 2014 the Company was served with an Amended Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120 defendants, including the Company and ISO. Except for the Company, ISO and the defendant Acord Corporation, which provides standard forms to assist in insurance transactions, most of the other defendants are property and casualty insurance companies that plaintiffs claim conspired to underpay property damage claims. Plaintiffs claim that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common law. On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which was re-filed by plaintiffs to correct errors as the Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint similarly alleges that the defendants conspired to underpay property damage claims, but does not specifically allege what role the Company or ISO played in the alleged conspiracy. It claims that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common law, and seeks all available relief including injunctive, statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as attorneys’ fees. On January 15, 2016, the Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this dismissal on February 16, 2016. The Court granted defendants’ motion to strike the motion for reconsideration on March 2, 2016 and gave plaintiffs leave to file another motion for reconsideration in accordance with the rules which plaintiffs filed on March 11, 2016 and, which was denied by the Court on April 25, 2016. On April 1, 2016, plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s January 15, 2016 Order, which dismissed all claims in the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs also filed an appeal of the Court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit consolidated with the appeal of the Court’s January 15, 2016 dismissal. Appellants filed their brief in support of the consolidated appeal on July 21, 2016 and Appellees filed their brief in response on September 21, 2016. On April 6, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed the Court’s dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint. The time period for which Plaintiffs could move for a motion for reconsideration of the 10th Circuit’s affirmance or Petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari has not expired. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter. Halloran Matter On February 19, 2016, the Company was served with a notice of a summons and complaint filed on January 29, 2016 against ISO and more than 100 insurers.in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut titled Halloran et al. v. Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co. et al. As alleged in the First Amended Complaint, the putative class action is brought by four policyholders on behalf of a class of similarly situated policyholders in eastern Connecticut who allege that their homeowner’s insurance carriers have wrongfully denied or will deny their claims for damage to their homes caused by defective concrete. The lawsuit alleges a breach of contract claim against certain insurers and seeks declaratory relief as to more than 100 other insurers. It also alleges that ISO as the drafter of the standardized policy language at issue violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices ("CUTPA") and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act ("CUIPA"). The plaintiffs ask that the Court certify a class of persons similarly situated and seek relief in the form of the cost for the replacement of their concrete foundations, and a declaratory judgment that all of the defendant insurance carriers are obligated to provide coverage for claims resulting from the defective concrete as well as, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. On March 17, 2016 plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint that named additional insurers as defendants. On May 6, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the First Amended Complaint, indicating an intention to remove ISO and certain insurers as defendants and to add other insurers as defendants. While that motion was pending, plaintiffs sought leave to make further amendments to the complaint. On April 6, 2017, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file a Substituted Third Amended Complaint, which does not name ISO as a defendant. That complaint was filed on April 7, 2017. Accordingly, ISO is no longer a defendant in this case. |