Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies	Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies We have been named in various lawsuits and 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. For matters where a settlement has been reached, we have recorded the expected amount(s) of such settlements. With respect to audits, investigations or lawsuits that are ongoing, although their final dispositions are not yet determinable, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of such matters, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. As of September 30, 2017, we do not believe that a material loss exceeding amounts accrued of $20.1 million is probable, of which $17.6 million was recorded in the three months ended September 30, 2017. 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. Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Actions In February 2012, CoreLogic National Background Data, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic Background Data, LLC) (“CBD”) was named as a defendant in a putative class action styled Tyrone Henderson, et. al., v. CoreLogic National Background Data, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiffs allege violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and have pled a putative class claim relating to CBD’s return of criminal record data in response to search queries initiated by its consumer reporting agency customers, which then prepare and transmit employment background screening reports to their employer customers. Plaintiffs contend that CBD failed to send notice letters to consumers each time search results were returned to CBD’s consumer reporting agency customers. In February 2016, the court denied CBD’s motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs initially sought to represent a nationwide class of consumers who were the subject of searches conducted by CBD’s customers. The court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a nationwide class on three separate occasions in April 2015, April 2016 and September 2016. However, in September 2016, the court allowed Plaintiffs to seek certification of three subclasses and in March 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification as to one of these subclasses, seeking to certify a class of consumers for whom sex offender records were returned that did not reflect a date of birth associated with the record. Following a series of judicial settlement conferences concluding in August 2017, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the case with respect to a class of 75,400 consumers. In September 2017, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. A final fairness hearing is set for January 2018. In June 2015, a companion case, Witt v. CoreLogic National Background Data, et. al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by the same attorneys as in Henderson, alleging the same claim against CBD. Witt also names as a defendant CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC (“RPS”)) on the theory that RPS provides criminal record “reports” to CBD at the same time that CBD delivers reports to CBD’s consumer reporting agency customers. Witt is pending in the same court and before the same judge as Henderson, and the two cases have been deemed related by the Court. In April 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to certify a class of consumers for whom Virginia criminal record data was returned that did not reflect a year of birth associated with the record. Following a series of judicial settlement conferences concluding in August 2017, the parties entered into two agreements to settle the case with respect to two classes, which together total 216,226 consumers. In September 2017, the court preliminarily approved the settlements. A final fairness hearing is set for January 2018. On July 2017, CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC (“RPS”)) was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit styled Claudinne Feliciano, et. al., v. CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. An amended complaint was filed on August 9 to name RPS as the Defendant, and service was made on August 11. The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act. The named plaintiff alleges that RPS prepared a background screening report about her that contained a record of a New York Housing Court action without noting that the action had previously been dismissed. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated consumers with respect to reports issued during the period of July 2015 to the present. RPS filed an answer on October 2017, denying liability. RPS intends to defend against these claims vigorously. 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 (the "Separation and Distribution Agreement"), 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, 2017, 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

Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies

We have been named in various lawsuits and 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. For matters where a settlement has been reached, we have recorded the expected amount(s) of such settlements. With respect to audits, investigations or lawsuits that are ongoing, although their final dispositions are not yet determinable, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of such matters, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. As of September 30, 2017, we do not believe that a material loss exceeding amounts accrued of $20.1 million is probable, of which $17.6 million was recorded in the three months ended September 30, 2017. 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.

Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Actions

In February 2012, CoreLogic National Background Data, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic Background Data, LLC) (“CBD”) was named as a defendant in a putative class action styled Tyrone Henderson, et. al., v. CoreLogic National Background Data, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiffs allege violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and have pled a putative class claim relating to CBD’s return of criminal record data in response to search queries initiated by its consumer reporting agency customers, which then prepare and transmit employment background screening reports to their employer customers. Plaintiffs contend that CBD failed to send notice letters to consumers each time search results were returned to CBD’s consumer reporting agency customers. In February 2016, the court denied CBD’s motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs initially sought to represent a nationwide class of consumers who were the subject of searches conducted by CBD’s customers. The court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a nationwide class on three separate occasions in April 2015, April 2016 and September 2016. However, in September 2016, the court allowed Plaintiffs to seek certification of three subclasses and in March 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification as to one of these subclasses, seeking to certify a class of consumers for whom sex offender records were returned that did not reflect a date of birth associated with the record. Following a series of judicial settlement conferences concluding in August 2017, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the case with respect to a class of 75,400 consumers. In September 2017, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. A final fairness hearing is set for January 2018.

In June 2015, a companion case, Witt v. CoreLogic National Background Data, et. al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by the same attorneys as in Henderson, alleging the same claim against CBD. Witt also names as a defendant CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC (“RPS”)) on the theory that RPS provides criminal record “reports” to CBD at the same time that CBD delivers reports to CBD’s consumer reporting agency customers. Witt is pending in the same court and before the same judge as Henderson, and the two cases have been deemed related by the Court. In April 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to certify a class of consumers for whom Virginia criminal record data was returned that did not reflect a year of birth associated with the record. Following a series of judicial settlement conferences concluding in August 2017, the parties entered into two agreements to settle the case with respect to two classes, which together total 216,226 consumers. In September 2017, the court preliminarily approved the settlements. A final fairness hearing is set for January 2018.

On July 2017, CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC (“RPS”)) was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit styled Claudinne Feliciano, et. al., v. CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. An amended complaint was filed on August 9 to name RPS as the Defendant, and service was made on August 11. The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act. The named plaintiff alleges that RPS prepared a background screening report about her that contained a record of a New York Housing Court action without noting that the action had previously been dismissed. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated consumers with respect to reports issued during the period of July 2015 to the present. RPS filed an answer on October 2017, denying liability. RPS intends to defend against these claims vigorously.

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 (the "Separation and Distribution Agreement"), 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, 2017, 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