Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies	Note 16 – Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to lawsuits and are also involved in ongoing routine legal and regulatory proceedings related to their operations. These lawsuits and proceedings frequently are similar in nature to other lawsuits and proceedings pending against the Company’s competitors. When the Company has determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, a liability representing the best estimate of the Company’s financial exposure based on known facts has been recorded. Actual losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded. With respect to the Company’s outstanding ordinary course lawsuits and proceedings, the Company has determined either that a loss is not reasonably possible or that the estimated loss or range of loss, if any, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company’s ordinary course lawsuits include class actions or purported class action lawsuits, which challenge practices in the Company’s home warranty and title insurance and settlement services businesses. On February 25, 2005, a lawsuit styled, Sjobring vs. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On March 26, 2025, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Company. On April 22, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a notice of intention to move for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On June 23, 2025, plaintiffs’ motion for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. On July 1, 2025, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Most of the Company’s businesses are regulated by various federal, state and local governmental agencies. Many of the Company’s other businesses operate within statutory guidelines. Consequently, the Company may from time to time be subject to examination or investigation by such governmental agencies. Currently, governmental agencies are examining or investigating certain of the Company’s operations. The Company does not believe that any pending examinations or investigations will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Some of these exams or investigations could, however, result in changes to the Company’s business practices which could ultimately have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 16 – Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies

The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to lawsuits and are also involved in ongoing routine legal and regulatory proceedings related to their operations. These lawsuits and proceedings frequently are similar in nature to other lawsuits and proceedings pending against the Company’s competitors. When the Company has determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, a liability representing the best estimate of the Company’s financial exposure based on known facts has been recorded. Actual losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded.

With respect to the Company’s outstanding ordinary course lawsuits and proceedings, the Company has determined either that a loss is not reasonably possible or that the estimated loss or range of loss, if any, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company’s ordinary course lawsuits include class actions or purported class action lawsuits, which challenge practices in the Company’s home warranty and title insurance and settlement services businesses. On February 25, 2005, a lawsuit styled, Sjobring vs. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On March 26, 2025, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Company. On April 22, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a notice of intention to move for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On June 23, 2025, plaintiffs’ motion for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. On July 1, 2025, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Most of the Company’s businesses are regulated by various federal, state and local governmental agencies. Many of the Company’s other businesses operate within statutory guidelines. Consequently, the Company may from time to time be subject to examination or investigation by such governmental agencies. Currently, governmental agencies are examining or investigating certain of the Company’s operations.

The Company does not believe that any pending examinations or investigations will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Some of these exams or investigations could, however, result in changes to the Company’s business practices which could ultimately have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.