Note 16 - Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2020
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	16. 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 ongoing matters or the impact these matters may have on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Although the Company believes it has strong defenses and intends to appeal any rulings adverse to the Company, 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. 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 alleged that the Company’s Roof InSight (now known as Geomni Roof), Property InSight product (now known as Geomni Property) and Aerial Sketch product in combination with the Company's Xactimate product infringe seven patents owned by Eagle View and Pictometry namely, Patent Nos. 8,078,436 (the "436 patent"), 8,170,840 (the "840 patent"), 8,209,152 (the "152 patent"), 8,542,880 (the "880 patent"), 8,818,770 (the "770 patent"), 8,823,732 (the "732 patent"), and 8,825,454 (the "454 patent"). On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding Patent Nos. 9,129,376 (the "376 patent") and 9,135,737 (the "737 patent") to the lawsuit. The First Amended Complaint sought an entry of judgment by the Court that defendants have and continue to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe, including by way of inducement, the Patents-in-Suit, permanent injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney’s fees. On May 19, 2017, the District Court entered a Joint Stipulated Order of Partial Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing all claims or assertions pertaining to the 880 and 732 patents, and certain asserted claims of the 436, 840, 152, 770, 454, 376 and 737 patents (collectively the “Patents in Suit”). Subsequently, Eagle View dropped the 152 patent and the 737 patent and reduced the number of asserted claims from the five remaining Patents in Suit to six asserted claims. On September 25, 2019, following a trial, the jury determined that the Company had willfully infringed the six asserted claims, and assessed damages in the amount of $125.0 million. After trial, Eagle View moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a permanent injunction preventing the Company's sales of the Geomni Roof, Geomni Property and Aerial Sketch products in combination with Xactimate. The Court granted the motion for a TRO on September 26, 2019 and on October 18, 2019, issued an Order permanently enjoining the Company's sales of the Geomni Roof, Geomni Property and Aerial Sketch products in combination with Xactimate. In addition, Eagle View has asked the Court to award enhanced damages by trebling the jury's damages award, together with attorneys' fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The Company opposed all of Eagle View's requests and also asked the Court for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Eagle View opposed the Company's requests. On September 9, 2020, the Court denied the Company's motion seeking judgment as a matter of law and a new trial. The Company timely filed its Amended Notice of Appeal on October 8, 2020. Eagle View's motion for an award of enhanced damages remains undecided by the Court. Following the outcome of the trial, the Company established a $125.0 million reserve in connection with this litigation, which was included in selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019. It is not reasonably possible to determine the ultimate resolution of this matter at this time. While the ultimate resolution of this matter remains uncertain at this time, should the Court grant Eagle View's request for enhanced damages, the Company could incur additional expenses up to the amount by which any enhanced damages award exceeds the existing $125.0 million reserve. ERISA Litigation On September 24, 2020, former employees Jillyn Peterson, Gabe Hare, Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski (“Plaintiffs”), filed suit in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey (No. 2:20-cv-13223-CCC-MF) against Defendants Insurance Services Office Inc. (“ISO”), the Plan Administration Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members, and the Trust Investment Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members. The class action complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA. The class is defined as all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the ISO 401(k) Savings and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“Plan”), at any time between September 24, 2014 through the date of judgment. The complaint alleges that all Defendants are fiduciaries with respect to the Plan. Plaintiffs challenge the amount of fees paid by Plan participants to maintain the investment funds in the plan portfolio and the amount of recordkeeper fees paid by participants. Plaintiffs allege that by permitting the payment of excessive fees, the Committee Defendants breached their ERISA duties of prudence and loyalty. Plaintiffs further allege that ISO breached its ERISA duty by failing to monitor the Committee Defendants who they allege committed known breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint does not specify damages but alleges the fiduciary breaches cost Plan participants millions of dollars. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.

Note 16 - Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

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 ongoing matters or the impact these matters may have on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Although the Company believes it has strong defenses and intends to appeal any rulings adverse to the Company, 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.

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 alleged that the Company’s Roof InSight (now known as Geomni Roof), Property InSight product (now known as Geomni Property) and Aerial Sketch product in combination with the Company's Xactimate product infringe seven patents owned by Eagle View and Pictometry namely, Patent Nos. 8,078,436 (the "436 patent"), 8,170,840 (the "840 patent"), 8,209,152 (the "152 patent"), 8,542,880 (the "880 patent"), 8,818,770 (the "770 patent"), 8,823,732 (the "732 patent"), and 8,825,454 (the "454 patent"). On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding Patent Nos. 9,129,376 (the "376 patent") and 9,135,737 (the "737 patent") to the lawsuit. The First Amended Complaint sought an entry of judgment by the Court that defendants have and continue to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe, including by way of inducement, the Patents-in-Suit, permanent injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney’s fees. On May 19, 2017, the District Court entered a Joint Stipulated Order of Partial Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing all claims or assertions pertaining to the 880 and 732 patents, and certain asserted claims of the 436, 840, 152, 770, 454, 376 and 737 patents (collectively the “Patents in Suit”). Subsequently, Eagle View dropped the 152 patent and the 737 patent and reduced the number of asserted claims from the five remaining Patents in Suit to six asserted claims. On September 25, 2019, following a trial, the jury determined that the Company had willfully infringed the six asserted claims, and assessed damages in the amount of $125.0 million. After trial, Eagle View moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a permanent injunction preventing the Company's sales of the Geomni Roof, Geomni Property and Aerial Sketch products in combination with Xactimate. The Court granted the motion for a TRO on September 26, 2019 and on October 18, 2019, issued an Order permanently enjoining the Company's sales of the Geomni Roof, Geomni Property and Aerial Sketch products in combination with Xactimate. In addition, Eagle View has asked the Court to award enhanced damages by trebling the jury's damages award, together with attorneys' fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The Company opposed all of Eagle View's requests and also asked the Court for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Eagle View opposed the Company's requests. On September 9, 2020, the Court denied the Company's motion seeking judgment as a matter of law and a new trial. The Company timely filed its Amended Notice of Appeal on October 8, 2020. Eagle View's motion for an award of enhanced damages remains undecided by the Court. Following the outcome of the trial, the Company established a $125.0 million reserve in connection with this litigation, which was included in selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019. It is not reasonably possible to determine the ultimate resolution of this matter at this time. While the ultimate resolution of this matter remains uncertain at this time, should the Court grant Eagle View's request for enhanced damages, the Company could incur additional expenses up to the amount by which any enhanced damages award exceeds the existing $125.0 million reserve.

ERISA Litigation

On September 24, 2020, former employees Jillyn Peterson, Gabe Hare, Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski (“Plaintiffs”), filed suit in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey (No. 2:20-cv-13223-CCC-MF) against Defendants Insurance Services Office Inc. (“ISO”), the Plan Administration Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members, and the Trust Investment Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members. The class action complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA. The class is defined as all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the ISO 401(k) Savings and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“Plan”), at any time between September 24, 2014 through the date of judgment. The complaint alleges that all Defendants are fiduciaries with respect to the Plan. Plaintiffs challenge the amount of fees paid by Plan participants to maintain the investment funds in the plan portfolio and the amount of recordkeeper fees paid by participants. Plaintiffs allege that by permitting the payment of excessive fees, the Committee Defendants breached their ERISA duties of prudence and loyalty. Plaintiffs further allege that ISO breached its ERISA duty by failing to monitor the Committee Defendants who they allege committed known breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint does not specify damages but alleges the fiduciary breaches cost Plan participants millions of dollars. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.