XML 35 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.1

Note 16 - Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2021
Notes to Financial Statements |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | 16. Commitments and Contingencies: We are 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, we are 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 our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Although we believe we have strong defenses and intend to appeal any adverse rulings to us, we could in the future incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Xactware Solutions, Inc. Patent Litigation On October 8, 2015, we were 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 "Court"). The complaint alleged that our Roof InSight (now known as Geomni Roof), Property InSight product (now known as Geomni Property) and Aerial Sketch product in combination with our 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 we 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 our 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 our sales of the Geomni Roof, Geomni Property and Aerial Sketch products in combination with Xactimate. On March 2, 2020, the Court signed an Order staying execution of the $125.0 million judgment pending our appeal, and we subsequently secured a supersedeas bond in the amount of $137.5 million to satisfy the New Jersey court rule requiring a bond in the amount of 110% of the monetary judgment. In addition, Eagle View 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. We opposed all of Eagle View's requests and asked the Court for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Eagle View opposed our requests. On September 9, 2020, the Court denied our motion seeking judgment as a matter of law and a new trial. We timely filed our Amended Notice of Appeal on October 8, 2020. Eagle View filed a motion to dismiss or deactivate the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction on November 4, 2020 which was denied by the Federal Circuit on December 15, 2020. We filed our appellate brief on December 24, 2020. On February 16, 2021, the Court granted Eagle View's motion for enhanced damages and attorneys' fees. The Court trebled the jury's award of $125.0 million, awarding enhanced damages for a total of $375.0 million, and also awarded Eagle View pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Court's award of Eagle View's attorneys' fees was limited to the period just before the commencement of trial through the trial, and did not include the earlier approximately four-year period in the case. On March 17, 2021, we filed an unopposed application with the Federal Circuit seeking consolidation of our appeals addressing the trial Court’s findings on infringement, the denial of our motion for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, and the Court’s Order on enhanced damages. On March 30, 2021, the Court granted our request, and our consolidated appellate brief was filed on April 22, 2021. Following the outcome of the trial in 2019, we established a $125.0 million reserve in connection with this litigation, which was included in selling, general and administrative expenses in our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2019. Since the appeal to the Federal Circuit remains pending, 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 our appeal be unsuccessful, we could incur additional expenses up to the amount by which the enhanced damages award, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, exceeds the existing $125.0 million reserve. On April 15, 2021, the Court signed an order continuing the stay of execution of the monetary judgment. In light of the Court’s Order enhancing damages, we agreed to post an additional bond in the amount of $305.0 million. 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 ("Committee Defendants"), 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. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on January 12, 2021, which the Court partially denied on April 13, 2021. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. ISO Claims Partners Litigation On October 23, 2020, Cara Jane Penegar, as Executrix of the Estate of Johnny Ray Penegar, Jr., filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 3:20-cv-585-RJC-DCK, against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (collectively “Liberty Mutual”), as well as Verisk Analytics, Inc. and ISO Claims Partners, Inc. (collectively “we”). The complaint alleges that Liberty Mutual violated the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“MSPA”) by failing to reimburse Medicare for medical services that should have been covered by its policies, with the result that Medicare bore the cost instead. The suit alleges that we are jointly and severally liable because of our involvement in Medicare reporting and/or other plan management. The complaint pleads a North Carolina class and a nationwide class, each composed of: all Medicare enrollees (within the respective geographic areas) for whom Medicare paid for an item or service where Liberty Mutual was the carrier and/or we were involved in claims administration; where defendants were demonstrated to be responsible for payment of the medical services via a workers’ compensation judgment, settlement, award, or contractual obligation; where defendants provided notice to the government of the fact of the settlement, judgment or award establishing their responsibility on or after October 23, 2017; but where defendants failed to make timely payment. The complaint does not identify the amount of damages sought but seeks double damages under the MSPA on behalf of all class members for all amounts at issue, as well as interest and attorneys’ fees. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint were fully briefed on January 28, 2021. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. Jornaya Litigation On February 2, 2021 we were served with a putative class action lawsuit brought by Peter Dyloco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Mazda Motor of America, Inc. and Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a/ Jornaya (collectively “we”, "us") and Mouseflow, Inc. No. 3:20-cv-09099-JCS. In this action plaintiff alleges a class of all California residents who visited mazdausa.com and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by Jornaya and/or Mouseflow without their consent. The class complaint alleges that we, Mazda and Mouseflow violated California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code sections 631 and 635 by “wiretapping” and “intercepting” the communications of California residents with Mazda during their visit to Mazda’s website. For each of these counts the complaint claims damages pursuant to Cal. Penal Code section 637 for the greater of 5,000 dollars or three times the actual damages per violation of the statute and injunctive relief. On April 13, 2021, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit without prejudice before we filed our response to the complaint. On December 10, 2020, we were served with a putative class action lawsuit brought by Erica Jackson in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania against Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya (“we” or “us”), Case No. 2020 CV 03695. The class complaint alleges that we violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act (“PWA”), 18 Pa. Const. Stat. § 5701 et seq. by “wiretapping” and “intercepting” the plaintiff’s communications on the website colleges.educationgrant.com. The plaintiff alleges a class of all persons whose electronic communications were intercepted through the use of our wiretapping on the website. The complaint claims damages pursuant to the PWA for actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs. On February 16, 2021, we filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff’s complaint, and the plaintiff opposed. The Court set a hearing on our preliminary objections for April 19, 2021. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. Financial Services Government Inquiry We are cooperating with an inquiry by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia related to government contracts within our financial services segment. The inquiry is at an early stage, we have voluntarily produced documents, and we cannot anticipate the timing, outcome or possible impact of the inquiry, financial or otherwise.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_DisclosureTextBlockAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration