Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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 December 31, 2017, we do not believe that a material loss exceeding amounts accrued of $16.8 million is probable, all of which was recorded prior to 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 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. The parties have agreed to settle the case on a class-wide basis, and a final fairness hearing is set for March 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 provided criminal record “reports” to CBD at the same time that CBD delivered reports to CBD’s consumer reporting agency customers. The parties have agreed to settle the case on a class-wide basis, and a final fairness hearing is set for March 2018. In July 2017, 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. 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 has denied the claims and intends to defend against these claims vigorously. In November 2017, CoreLogic Credco, LLC (“Credco”) was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit styled Shakeena King, et. al., v. CoreLogic Credco, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiff alleges that Credco prepared a tri-merge report about her which included information belonging to another person. Credco has denied the claims and intends to defend against the 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, 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 December 31, 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 FAC's 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 December 31, 2017, we do not believe that a material loss exceeding amounts accrued of $16.8 million is probable, all of which was recorded prior to 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 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. The parties have agreed to settle the case on a class-wide basis, and a final fairness hearing is set for March 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 provided criminal record “reports” to CBD at the same time that CBD delivered reports to CBD’s consumer reporting agency customers. The parties have agreed to settle the case on a class-wide basis, and a final fairness hearing is set for March 2018.

In July 2017, 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. 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 has denied the claims and intends to defend against these claims vigorously.

In November 2017, CoreLogic Credco, LLC (“Credco”) was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit styled Shakeena King, et. al., v. CoreLogic Credco, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiff alleges that Credco prepared a tri-merge report about her which included information belonging to another person. Credco has denied the claims and intends to defend against the 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, 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 December 31, 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 FAC's 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.