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 a total of 20 separate putative class action lawsuits, sixteen against General Motors LLC (“GM”), OnStar LLC (“OnStar”), LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (“LexisNexis”) and Verisk in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Eastern District of Michigan, Central District of California, District of New Jersey, Southern District of New York, Northern District of Alabama, Northern District of Illinois and District of South Carolina, and four against Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai”) and Verisk in the Central District of California and District of New Jersey, three of which have been dismissed to date. The Complaints generally allege that the auto manufacturer Defendants collected consumers’ driver behavior data through vehicle software, transmitted it to LexisNexis and Verisk, and that LexisNexis and Verisk shared the data with auto 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. On June 7, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all GM-related lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (In Re: Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Litigation, MDL Case No. 1:24-md-03115-TWT). All discovery proceedings have been stayed. 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, which was fully briefed as of June 21, 2024, and was partially denied on August 29, 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.

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. 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. On June 21, 2024, the court issued a “lack of prosecution” warning to Atlas, advising that the case will be dismissed without prejudice if service is not effectuated by August 20, 2024. The case was dismissed without prejudice on August 26, 2024. On October 11, 2024, Plaintiffs served Verisk with the Summons and Complaint, indicating their intent to revise the lawsuit. 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 engaged 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. The parties have agreed to a settlement in principle.

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 and allowed the parties to engage in limited discovery.  Our renewed motion to dismiss was filed on July 19, 2024 and oral argument was held on September 20, 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  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.