Note 16 - Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2022
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 have appealed 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. 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. The parties are currently proceeding with discovery. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter as the case is still in its early stages. Jornaya Litigation 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, the plaintiff opposed, and the Court ultimately denied our preliminary objections. We subsequently filed a petition to compel arbitration and a motion to stay this action pending the completion of the parties’ arbitration proceedings. On September 30, 2021, the court denied our motions and directed the parties to proceed with discovery. On October 8, 2021, we filed a Notice of Appeal to seek review of the lower court’s decision with the Pennsylvania appellate court system, and filed our opening appellate brief on or about March 3, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. Financial Services Government Inquiry We continue to cooperate with an inquiry originating from the civil division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia related to government contracts within our Financial Services segment. In addition, in March 2022, we were informed that the SEC is conducting an inquiry related to certain of the same government contracts of our Financial Services segment. These inquiries are ongoing, we have voluntarily produced documents, and we cannot anticipate the timing, outcome or possible impact of the inquiry, financial or otherwise. Breach of Contract Litigation On April 2, 2021, Leica Geosystems ("Leica") and its subsidiary, Intergraph Corporation filed a lawsuit against Verisk Analytics and Geomni, Inc. ("we" "our" or "us") in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama, titled Leica Geosystems AG, et al. v. Geomni, Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc., Vexcel Imaging, Inc., et al. Co-Defendant, Vexcel Imaging, through its subsidiary, GV Air, is alleged to have breached a master lease agreement related to Leica’s aerial sensor units. The complaint further alleges breach of a license agreement for royalties earned from the sale of aerial imagery data, and breach of a mutual nondisclosure agreement related to the alleged disclosure of confidential information to co-defendant, Vexcel Imaging. Leica seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. We filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims and the hearing took place on January 7, 2022. The court denied our motion and we subsequently filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Alabama. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. Wood Mackenzie Litigation On August 10, 2021, S&P Global Inc. d/b/a Platts filed a lawsuit against Wood Mackenzie (“we,” “us,” or “our”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, titled S&P Global Inc. d/b/a Platts v. Wood Mackenzie Ltd., Civil Action No. 21-cv-6739. The Complaint alleges that our use of Platts’ data exceeded the scope of the applicable licensing agreement between the two parties. Platts seeks to recover actual damages as a result of the alleged breach of the agreement, attorney’s fees and costs, as well as injunctive relief requiring Wood Mackenzie to cease all use of its proprietary data. On March 21, 2022, the parties settled this lawsuit, and Platts filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice with the court on April 13, 2022. Data Privacy Litigation On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Jillian Cantinieri brought a putative class action against Verisk Analytics, Insurance Services Office and ISO Claims Services, Inc. (“we,” “our,” or “us”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, titled Cantinieri v. Verisk Analytics Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-6911. The Complaint alleges that we failed to safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed classes from a purported breach of our databases by unauthorized entities. Plaintiff and class members allege actual and imminent injuries, including theft of their PII, fraudulent activity on their financial accounts, lowered credit scores, and costs associated with detection and prevention of identity theft and fraud. They seek to recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, disgorgement of earnings and profits, and attorney’s fees and costs. We filed our motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on April 22, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. LCI Litigation¹ On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff William Norman Brooks filed a consumer class action lawsuit against Lundquist Consulting, Inc. (“LCI,” “us,” “we,” or “our”) in California Superior Court, San Matteo County, titled Brooks v. Lundquist Consulting, Inc., Case No. 21-CIV-06824. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and California Unfair Competition Law, and Defamation. LCI has not yet been served with the Complaint. Plaintiff claims that LCI inaccurately reported Mr. Brooks as bankrupt, and that this caused emotional harm and harmed his credit standing, credit score and reputation. Plaintiff alleges that LCI’s statements about his (and other class members’) bankruptcies to third parties amounted to defamation. It is also alleged that LCI did not provide Plaintiff and others an opportunity to review and dispute any accuracies in the information sold by LCI about them and did not disclose their consumer credit files when asked. Plaintiff seeks to certify Nationwide Inaccuracy and Failure to Disclose Classes, as well as California Inaccuracy and Failure to Disclose Subclasses. He also seeks to recover actual and punitive damages, restitution of funds suspended and the value of credit privileges revoked or terminated, injunctive relief ordering LCI to rectify the credit reporting errors and change its procedures for attributing bankruptcy information, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The case was removed to the Northern District of California federal court, San Francisco Division, on March 25, 2022, and LCI’s response to the Complaint will be filed on or before May 2, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. ^[1] As of April 8, 2022, the closing date of the sale of Verisk Financial Services, including LCI, to TransUnion, TransUnion assumed the defense of this litigation.

Note 16 - Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

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 have appealed 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.

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. The parties are currently proceeding with discovery. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter as the case is still in its early stages.

Jornaya Litigation

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, the plaintiff opposed, and the Court ultimately denied our preliminary objections. We subsequently filed a petition to compel arbitration and a motion to stay this action pending the completion of the parties’ arbitration proceedings. On September 30, 2021, the court denied our motions and directed the parties to proceed with discovery. On October 8, 2021, we filed a Notice of Appeal to seek review of the lower court’s decision with the Pennsylvania appellate court system, and filed our opening appellate brief on or about March 3, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.

Financial Services Government Inquiry

We continue to cooperate with an inquiry originating from the civil division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia related to government contracts within our Financial Services segment. In addition, in March 2022, we were informed that the SEC is conducting an inquiry related to certain of the same government contracts of our Financial Services segment. These inquiries are ongoing, we have voluntarily produced documents, and we cannot anticipate the timing, outcome or possible impact of the inquiry, financial or otherwise.

Breach of Contract Litigation

On April 2, 2021, Leica Geosystems ("Leica") and its subsidiary, Intergraph Corporation filed a lawsuit against Verisk Analytics and Geomni, Inc. ("we" "our" or "us") in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama, titled Leica Geosystems AG, et al. v. Geomni, Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc., Vexcel Imaging, Inc., et al. Co-Defendant, Vexcel Imaging, through its subsidiary, GV Air, is alleged to have breached a master lease agreement related to Leica’s aerial sensor units. The complaint further alleges breach of a license agreement for royalties earned from the sale of aerial imagery data, and breach of a mutual nondisclosure agreement related to the alleged disclosure of confidential information to co-defendant, Vexcel Imaging. Leica seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. We filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims and the hearing took place on January 7, 2022. The court denied our motion and we subsequently filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Alabama. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.

Wood Mackenzie Litigation

On August 10, 2021, S&P Global Inc. d/b/a Platts filed a lawsuit against Wood Mackenzie (“we,” “us,” or “our”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, titled S&P Global Inc. d/b/a Platts v. Wood Mackenzie Ltd., Civil Action No. 21-cv-6739. The Complaint alleges that our use of Platts’ data exceeded the scope of the applicable licensing agreement between the two parties. Platts seeks to recover actual damages as a result of the alleged breach of the agreement, attorney’s fees and costs, as well as injunctive relief requiring Wood Mackenzie to cease all use of its proprietary data. On March 21, 2022, the parties settled this lawsuit, and Platts filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice with the court on April 13, 2022.

Data Privacy Litigation

On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Jillian Cantinieri brought a putative class action against Verisk Analytics, Insurance Services Office and ISO Claims Services, Inc. (“we,” “our,” or “us”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, titled Cantinieri v. Verisk Analytics Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-6911. The Complaint alleges that we failed to safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed classes from a purported breach of our databases by unauthorized entities. Plaintiff and class members allege actual and imminent injuries, including theft of their PII, fraudulent activity on their financial accounts, lowered credit scores, and costs associated with detection and prevention of identity theft and fraud. They seek to recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, disgorgement of earnings and profits, and attorney’s fees and costs. We filed our motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on April 22, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.

LCI Litigation¹

On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff William Norman Brooks filed a consumer class action lawsuit against Lundquist Consulting, Inc. (“LCI,” “us,” “we,” or “our”) in California Superior Court, San Matteo County, titled Brooks v. Lundquist Consulting, Inc., Case No. 21-CIV-06824. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and California Unfair Competition Law, and Defamation. LCI has not yet been served with the Complaint. Plaintiff claims that LCI inaccurately reported Mr. Brooks as bankrupt, and that this caused emotional harm and harmed his credit standing, credit score and reputation. Plaintiff alleges that LCI’s statements about his (and other class members’) bankruptcies to third parties amounted to defamation. It is also alleged that LCI did not provide Plaintiff and others an opportunity to review and dispute any accuracies in the information sold by LCI about them and did not disclose their consumer credit files when asked. Plaintiff seeks to certify Nationwide Inaccuracy and Failure to Disclose Classes, as well as California Inaccuracy and Failure to Disclose Subclasses. He also seeks to recover actual and punitive damages, restitution of funds suspended and the value of credit privileges revoked or terminated, injunctive relief ordering LCI to rectify the credit reporting errors and change its procedures for attributing bankruptcy information, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The case was removed to the Northern District of California federal court, San Francisco Division, on March 25, 2022, and LCI’s response to the Complaint will be filed on or before May 2, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.

^[1] As of April 8, 2022, the closing date of the sale of Verisk Financial Services, including LCI, to TransUnion, TransUnion assumed the defense of this litigation.