Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies	Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies We have been named in various lawsuits. Also, we may from time to time be subject to audit or investigation by governmental agencies. Currently, governmental agencies are auditing or investigating certain of our operations. With respect to matters where we have determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, we have recorded a liability representing our best estimate of the financial exposure based on known facts. While the ultimate disposition of each such audit, investigation or lawsuit is not yet determinable, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss exceeding amounts already accrued may have been incurred. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties. The actual outcome of such matters could differ materially from management’s estimates. We record expenses for legal fees as incurred. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Class Action On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9, 2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim. On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class certification order. Following discovery, on July 1, 2014, the defendant filed motions for summary judgment and to decertify the class. On September 16, 2014, the trial court granted summary judgment against one named plaintiff but denied it as to the other, denied the motion to decertify the class, and bifurcated trial into two phases. The parties thereafter conducted a court-ordered mediation and subsequently reached an agreement in principle to settle the case for a total of $9.9 million, inclusive of attorney fees and subject to court approval. We previously recorded an accrual for this amount within loss from discontinued operations, net of tax. On December 12, 2014, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. Notice to the class was subsequently made and, after a final fairness hearing on April 24, 2015, the court entered final judgment on April 27, 2015 approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice. Separation Following the Separation, we are responsible for a portion of FAFC's contingent and other corporate liabilities. In the Separation and Distribution Agreement we entered into in connection with the Separation, we agreed with FAFC to share equally in the cost of resolution of a small number of corporate-level lawsuits, including certain consolidated securities litigation matters from which we have since been dropped. There were no liabilities incurred in connection with the consolidated securities matters. Responsibility to manage each case has been assigned to either FAFC or us, with the managing party required to update the other party regularly and consult with the other party prior to certain important decisions, such as settlement. The managing party will also have primary responsibility for determining the ultimate total liability, if any, related to the applicable case. We will record our share of any such liability when the responsible party determines a reserve is necessary. At September 30, 2015, no reserves were considered necessary. In addition, the Separation and Distribution Agreement provides for cross-indemnities principally designed to place financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of our predecessor, The First American Corporation's ("FAC") financial services business, with FAFC and financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of FAC's information solutions business with us. Specifically, each party will, and will cause its subsidiaries and affiliates to, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party, its respective affiliates and subsidiaries and each of its respective officers, directors, employees and agents for any losses arising out of or otherwise in connection with the liabilities each such party assumed or retained pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement; and any breach by such party of the Separation and Distribution Agreement.

Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies

We have been named in various lawsuits. Also, we may from time to time be subject to audit or investigation by governmental agencies. Currently, governmental agencies are auditing or investigating certain of our operations.

With respect to matters where we have determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, we have recorded a liability representing our best estimate of the financial exposure based on known facts. While the ultimate disposition of each such audit, investigation or lawsuit is not yet determinable, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss exceeding amounts already accrued may have been incurred. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties. The actual outcome of such matters could differ materially from management’s estimates. We record expenses for legal fees as incurred.

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Class Action

On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9, 2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class certification order. Following discovery, on July 1, 2014, the defendant filed motions for summary judgment and to decertify the class. On September 16, 2014, the trial court granted summary judgment against one named plaintiff but denied it as to the other, denied the motion to decertify the class, and bifurcated trial into two phases. The parties thereafter conducted a court-ordered mediation and subsequently reached an agreement in principle to settle the case for a total of $9.9 million, inclusive of attorney fees and subject to court approval. We previously recorded an accrual for this amount within loss from discontinued operations, net of tax.

On December 12, 2014, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. Notice to the class was subsequently made and, after a final fairness hearing on April 24, 2015, the court entered final judgment on April 27, 2015 approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice.

Separation

Following the Separation, we are responsible for a portion of FAFC's contingent and other corporate liabilities. In the Separation and Distribution Agreement we entered into in connection with the Separation, we agreed with FAFC to share equally in the cost of resolution of a small number of corporate-level lawsuits, including certain consolidated securities litigation matters from which we have since been dropped. There were no liabilities incurred in connection with the consolidated securities matters. Responsibility to manage each case has been assigned to either FAFC or us, with the managing party required to update the other party regularly and consult with the other party prior to certain important decisions, such as settlement. The managing party will also have primary responsibility for determining the ultimate total liability, if any, related to the applicable case. We will record our share of any such liability when the responsible party determines a reserve is necessary. At September 30, 2015, no reserves were considered necessary.

In addition, the Separation and Distribution Agreement provides for cross-indemnities principally designed to place financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of our predecessor, The First American Corporation's ("FAC") financial services business, with FAFC and financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of FAC's information solutions business with us. Specifically, each party will, and will cause its subsidiaries and affiliates to, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party, its respective affiliates and subsidiaries and each of its respective officers, directors, employees and agents for any losses arising out of or otherwise in connection with the liabilities each such party assumed or retained pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement; and any breach by such party of the Separation and Distribution Agreement.