Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies:

The Company is 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, the Company is unable, at the present time, to determine the ultimate resolution of or provide a reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss attributable to these matters or the impact they may have on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows. In the case of the 360Value Litigation, this is primarily because the matter is generally in early stages and discovery has not yet commenced. Although the Company believes it has strong defenses and intends to vigorously defend these matters, the Company could in the future incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Xactware Solutions, Inc. Patent Litigation

On October 8, 2015, the Company was 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 complaint alleged that the Company’s Roof InSight (now known as Geomni Roof), Property InSight product (now known as Geomni Property) and Aerial Sketch product in combination with the Company's 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”). Eagle View further reduced the number of asserted claims pertaining to the Patents in Suit to 18 asserted claims. Thereafter, Eagle View dropped the 152 patent and further reduced the number of asserted claims from the six remaining Patents in Suit to 11 asserted claims. Fact discovery and expert discovery closed in 2018 and the Company's summary judgment motions were fully submitted on October 26, 2018. On December 6, 2018, the Court denied Eagle View’s motion for summary judgment that a key prior art reference be excluded. On December 20, 2018, the Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment of equitable estoppel. On January 29, 2019, the Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment of unpatentability pursuant to Section 101 of the Patent Act. Thereafter, Eagle View dropped the 737 patent and further reduced the number of asserted claims from the five remaining Patents in Suit to 6 asserted claims. On September 25, 2019, following a trial, the jury determined that the Company had willfully infringed the 6 asserted claims, and assessed damages in the amount of $125.0 million, for which the Company has recorded a reserve. The impact associated with the reserve was included in the "Selling, general and administrative" in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2019. After trial, Eagle View moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a permanent injunction preventing the Company's 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 the Company's sales of the Geomni Roof, Geomni Property and Aerial Sketch products in combination with Xactimate. The Company plans to appeal these results. Eagle View has petitioned the Court to award up to treble damages, together with fees and expenses. The parties' post-trial motions were fully submitted on December 10, 2019 and the parties are awaiting a decision on these motions. The Company has established a $125.0 million reserve in connection with this litigation, however, at this time, it is not reasonably possible to determine the ultimate resolution of this matter.

360Value Litigation

On December 10, 2018, the Company was served with a First Amended Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California titled Sheahan, et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Co., Inc., et al.  The action is brought by California homeowners, on their own behalf and on behalf of an unspecified putative class of State Farm policyholders whose homes were damaged or lost during the Northern California wildfires of 2017, against State Farm as well as the Company, ISO, and Xactware Solutions, Inc. Plaintiffs served a Second Amended Complaint on January 6, 2019.  Like the First Amended Complaint, it alleges that defendants through the use of the Company’s 360Value product conspired to under-insure plaintiffs’ homes by issuing undervalued policies and underestimating the costs of rebuilding those homes. Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated federal antitrust law as well as California consumer protection law and common law. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 8, 2019. On July 2, 2019, the Court granted those motions, dismissing various claims with leave to amend, and dismissing other claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on August 1, 2019. As in the Second Amended Complaint plaintiffs claim in the Third Amended Complaint that defendants violated federal antitrust law as well as California consumer protection law and common law. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on September 19, 2019. The motions were fully submitted on October 31, 2019 and oral argument was held on February 13, 2020. The Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint and dismissed all claims against defendants with prejudice on March 4, 2020. Plaintiffs have not filed a notice of appeal regarding the Court's decision.