Note 16 - Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2024
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	16. Commitments and Contingencies: We are a party to legal proceedings, investigations, examinations, subpoenas, third party requests, government requests, regulatory proceedings and other claims with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below (collectively, “Ongoing Matters”). 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. Telematics Litigation As of April 19, 2024, various Plaintiffs filed four, separate putative class action lawsuits against General Motors LLC (“GM”), OnStar LLC (“OnStar”), LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (“LexisNexis”) and Verisk (collectively, “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the Eastern District of Michigan and Southern District of New York. The Complaints generally allege that Defendants GM and OnStar collected consumers’ driver behavior data through vehicle software, transmitted it to LexisNexis and Verisk, and that LexisNexis and Verisk shared the data with insurance companies, without the individuals’ knowledge or consent. Plaintiffs seek certification of both nationwide classes of individuals and subclasses of various state residents who had their vehicle’s driving data collected by Defendants and shared with a third party without their consent. The Plaintiffs also seek actual, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to these matters, as they are still in their early stages. Indemnification Claim In December 2023, we received a Notice of Indemnification claim from the current owner of our former healthcare data analytics subsidiary, which was divested in 2016, relating to an ongoing tax investigation by the Nepalese tax authorities. Pursuant to the 2016 sale agreement, we are subject to indemnification obligations with respect to certain pre-closing tax liabilities of the divested entity. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter, as it is still in its early stages. Commercial Litigation On February 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, DDS Striker Holdings LLC and Data Driven Holdings LLC against Verisk Analytics, Inc. and Insurance Service Office, in the Superior Court of Delaware, Case No. N24C-02-130 VLM CCLD. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, common law fraud, and civil conspiracy in connection with their inability to meet the post-closing earn-out targets negotiated as part of our acquisition of Data Driven Safety, LLC. Plaintiffs seek rescissory, out-of-pocket and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees, costs and other expenses. We filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on April 3, 2024. 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. 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, as amended ("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. Fact discovery was completed. The court stayed the litigation pending the outcome of the parties’ mediation, but the stay was lifted on May 5, 2023. The parties engaged in expert discovery, and this matter was settled before a mediator on October 4, 2023. The settlement agreement was signed by both parties, and on January 12, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of class action settlement. As a requirement to this class action settlement, an independent fiduciary will review the settlement on behalf of the Plan. Financial Services Government Inquiry On or about March 12, 2024, our former subsidiary within our former Financial Services segment entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to settle a civil inquiry related to government contracts for $37.0 million. We cooperated with the inquiry, and the agreement with the DOJ concludes this matter. Under the stock purchase agreement we entered into with TransUnion pursuant to which TransUnion acquired our former Financial Services segment, we agreed to indemnify TransUnion for certain losses with respect to the inquiry. We previously recorded an accrued liability related to this matter. Data Privacy Litigation On or about February 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, Atlas Data Privacy Corp., et al. v. Verisk Analytics, Inc., et al., in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Case No. MID-L-000903-24, alleging violations of Daniel’s Law. Verisk has not yet been served. Atlas claims to be an “assignee” of claims of approximately 19,640 individuals who are “covered persons” under Daniel’s Law, allegedly enacted to provide judicial and law enforcement officers and their family members with the right to prevent disclosure of their personal information and to enforce those rights against uncooperative data brokers. It is alleged that Defendants have violated Daniel’s Law by failing to respond and comply with their written request to Defendants to cease publicly disclosing or re-disclosing their protected information. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in the amount of $1,000 per violation under the statute, punitive damages, injunctive relief ordering compliance with Daniel’s Law, permanent injunctive relief, including the appointment of a qualified independent expert to ensure compliance with Daniel’s Law, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 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. On January 30, 2023, Plaintiffs Justin Ahringer and Michael Donner filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of California, titled Ahringer et al. v. LoanDepot, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya, Case No.: 8:23-cv-00186. Plaintiffs assert violations of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, Unfair Competition Law, and a violation of class members’ privacy rights under the California Constitution. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants recorded visitors’ electronic communications without their consent. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of individuals who visited LoanDepot.com and provided personal information on the website’s forms to receive a quote or apply for a loan. They allege that the aggregate claims of all members of the proposed class exceeds $5.0 million. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, statutory or punitive damages or restitution, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs. We filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on April 13, 2023. The parties are currently engaging in jurisdictional discovery in response to the court’s demand to Plaintiff to demonstrate why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found jurisdiction is proper and partially denied our motion on February 7, 2024. We filed our Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint on February 22, 2024. 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. On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff Loretta Williams brought a putative class action against Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya (“we,” “our,” or “us”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, titled Williams v. DDR Media, LLC and Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-03789. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code 631 (“CIPA”) and invaded Plaintiff’s and class members’ privacy rights when Defendants purportedly recorded visitors’ visits to the scrappyrent2own.com website without prior express consent. It is further alleged that this conduct constitutes a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. and the California Constitution. The Complaint seeks class certification, injunctive relief, statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 for each violation, attorneys fees and other litigation costs. Our motion to compel arbitration was fully briefed as of January 27, 2023. It was denied on February 28, 2023. We filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on April 13, 2023. On August 18, 2023 the court granted our motion, dismissing Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice, but giving Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her claims by September 20, 2023. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on September 20, 2023. Our motion to dismiss the SAC was fully briefed on December 18, 2023. It was denied on January 30, 2024. The court held an initial case management conference for February 9, 2024. The parties are currently drafting a joint discovery schedule for proposal to the court. 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. 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. On March 30, 2023 the court denied our motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing us an opportunity to re-file the motion once limited jurisdictional discovery has been completed. Our renewed motion to dismiss was fully briefed on February 16, 2024. 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.

Note 16 - Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

16. Commitments and Contingencies:

We are a party to legal proceedings, investigations, examinations, subpoenas, third party requests, government requests, regulatory proceedings and other claims with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below (collectively, “Ongoing Matters”). 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.

Telematics Litigation

As of April 19, 2024, various Plaintiffs filed four, separate putative class action lawsuits against General Motors LLC (“GM”), OnStar LLC (“OnStar”), LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (“LexisNexis”) and Verisk (collectively, “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the Eastern District of Michigan and Southern District of New York. The Complaints generally allege that Defendants GM and OnStar collected consumers’ driver behavior data through vehicle software, transmitted it to LexisNexis and Verisk, and that LexisNexis and Verisk shared the data with insurance companies, without the individuals’ knowledge or consent. Plaintiffs seek certification of both nationwide classes of individuals and subclasses of various state residents who had their vehicle’s driving data collected by Defendants and shared with a third party without their consent. The Plaintiffs also seek actual, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to these matters, as they are still in their early stages.

Indemnification Claim

In December 2023, we received a Notice of Indemnification claim from the current owner of our former healthcare data analytics subsidiary, which was divested in 2016, relating to an ongoing tax investigation by the Nepalese tax authorities. Pursuant to the 2016 sale agreement, we are subject to indemnification obligations with respect to certain pre-closing tax liabilities of the divested entity. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter, as it is still in its early stages.

Commercial Litigation

On February 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, DDS Striker Holdings LLC and Data Driven Holdings LLC against Verisk Analytics, Inc. and Insurance Service Office, in the Superior Court of Delaware, Case No. N24C-02-130 VLM CCLD. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, common law fraud, and civil conspiracy in connection with their inability to meet the post-closing earn-out targets negotiated as part of our acquisition of Data Driven Safety, LLC. Plaintiffs seek rescissory, out-of-pocket and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees, costs and other expenses. We filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on April 3, 2024. 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.

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, as amended ("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. Fact discovery was completed. The court stayed the litigation pending the outcome of the parties’ mediation, but the stay was lifted on May 5, 2023. The parties engaged in expert discovery, and this matter was settled before a mediator on October 4, 2023. The settlement agreement was signed by both parties, and on January 12, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of class action settlement. As a requirement to this class action settlement, an independent fiduciary will review the settlement on behalf of the Plan.

Financial Services Government Inquiry

On or about March 12, 2024, our former subsidiary within our former Financial Services segment entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to settle a civil inquiry related to government contracts for $37.0 million. We cooperated with the inquiry, and the agreement with the DOJ concludes this matter. Under the stock purchase agreement we entered into with TransUnion pursuant to which TransUnion acquired our former Financial Services segment, we agreed to indemnify TransUnion for certain losses with respect to the inquiry. We previously recorded an accrued liability related to this matter.

Data Privacy Litigation

On or about February 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, Atlas Data Privacy Corp., et al. v. Verisk Analytics, Inc., et al., in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Case No. MID-L-000903-24, alleging violations of Daniel’s Law. Verisk has not yet been served. Atlas claims to be an “assignee” of claims of approximately 19,640 individuals who are “covered persons” under Daniel’s Law, allegedly enacted to provide judicial and law enforcement officers and their family members with the right to prevent disclosure of their personal information and to enforce those rights against uncooperative data brokers. It is alleged that Defendants have violated Daniel’s Law by failing to respond and comply with their written request to Defendants to cease publicly disclosing or re-disclosing their protected information. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in the amount of $1,000 per violation under the statute, punitive damages, injunctive relief ordering compliance with Daniel’s Law, permanent injunctive relief, including the appointment of a qualified independent expert to ensure compliance with Daniel’s Law, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 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.

On January 30, 2023, Plaintiffs Justin Ahringer and Michael Donner filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of California, titled Ahringer et al. v. LoanDepot, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya, Case No.: 8:23-cv-00186. Plaintiffs assert violations of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, Unfair Competition Law, and a violation of class members’ privacy rights under the California Constitution. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants recorded visitors’ electronic communications without their consent. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of individuals who visited LoanDepot.com and provided personal information on the website’s forms to receive a quote or apply for a loan. They allege that the aggregate claims of all members of the proposed class exceeds $5.0 million. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, statutory or punitive damages or restitution, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs. We filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on April 13, 2023. The parties are currently engaging in jurisdictional discovery in response to the court’s demand to Plaintiff to demonstrate why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found jurisdiction is proper and partially denied our motion on February 7, 2024. We filed our Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint on February 22, 2024. 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.

On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff Loretta Williams brought a putative class action against Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya (“we,” “our,” or “us”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, titled Williams v. DDR Media, LLC and Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-03789. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code 631 (“CIPA”) and invaded Plaintiff’s and class members’ privacy rights when Defendants purportedly recorded visitors’ visits to the scrappyrent2own.com website without prior express consent. It is further alleged that this conduct constitutes a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. and the California Constitution. The Complaint seeks class certification, injunctive relief, statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 for each violation, attorneys fees and other litigation costs. Our motion to compel arbitration was fully briefed as of January 27, 2023. It was denied on February 28, 2023. We filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on April 13, 2023. On August 18, 2023 the court granted our motion, dismissing Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice, but giving Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her claims by September 20, 2023. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on September 20, 2023. Our motion to dismiss the SAC was fully briefed on December 18, 2023. It was denied on January 30, 2024. The court held an initial case management conference for February 9, 2024. The parties are currently drafting a joint discovery schedule for proposal to the court. 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.

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. On March 30, 2023 the court denied our motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing us an opportunity to re-file the motion once limited jurisdictional discovery has been completed. Our renewed motion to dismiss was fully briefed on February 16, 2024. 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.