Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies-Between July 14, 2011 and July 21, 2011, securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaints assert claims against (i) the Company and the Company's CEO and CFO for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) the Company's CEO and CFO as alleged controlling persons. The complaints generally allege false statements in earnings reports, SEC filings, press releases, and other public statements that allegedly caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages. The New York action has been transferred to Georgia and has been consolidated with the Georgia action, now styled In re: Ebix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-02400-RSW (N.D. Ga.). A Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”) was filed by Plaintiffs on November 28, 2011. On January 12, 2012, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the CAC, which raised various defenses that the CAC failed to state a claim. On September 28, 2012, the Court entered an order denying the Company's Motion to Dismiss. On December 7, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. On June 19, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which is presently pending. On July 2, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification without prejudice to Plaintiffs' refiling their Motion should the Court deny, in whole or in part, Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On July 16, 2013, the Court entered a Stipulated Order Staying Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In connection with this shareholder class action suit, there have been three derivative complaints brought by certain shareholders on behalf of the Company, which name certain of the Company's officers and its entire board of directors as Defendants. The first such derivative action was brought by an alleged shareholder named Paul Nauman styled Nauman v. Raina, et al., Civil Action File No. 2011-cv-205276 (Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia). The second such derivative action was brought by an alleged shareholder named Gilbert Spagnola styled Spagnola v. Bhalla, et al., Civil action No. 1:13-CV-00062-RWS (N.D. Ga.), filed January 7, 2013. The third such derivative action was brought by an alleged shareholder named Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association of New York City Pension Fund styled Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund v. Raina, et al., Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-00246-RWS (N.D. Ga.), filed January 23, 2013. These derivative actions are based on substantially the same factual allegations in the shareholder class action suit, but also variously claim breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, the wasting of corporate assets, negligence, unjust enrichment by the Company's directors, and violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act. The Nauman case has been stayed pending the completion of expert discovery in the shareholder class action suit. On April 12, 2013, the Court entered an Order consolidating the Spagnola and Hotel derivative cases under the style In re Ebix, Inc. Derivative Litigation, File No. 1:13-CV-00062- RWS (N.D. Ga.), appointing Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as Lead Derivative Plaintiff, and appointing the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Lead Derivative Counsel and The Law Offices of David A. Bain LLC as Liaison Counsel. Lead Derivative Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class Action Complaint on May 20, 2013. Thereafter, the Court entered a Consent Order on June 4, 2013, setting a schedule for Lead Derivative Plaintiff to amend its complaint in light of the anticipated preliminary proxy related to the transaction announced on May 1, 2013 with affiliates of Goldman Sachs & Co. Based on the termination of the merger agreement relating to that transaction, as announced on June 19, 2013, the parties are conferring regarding future case scheduling. The Company denies any liability and intends to defend the federal and derivative actions vigorously. The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome for this matter is not estimable. On June 6, 2013, the Company was notified that the U.S Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia had opened an investigation into allegations of intentional misconduct that had been brought to its attention from the pending shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company's directors and officers, the media and other sources. The Company is cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's office. Following the announcement on May 1, 2013 of the execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of Goldman Sachs & Co., eleven putative class action complaints challenging the proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. These complaints name as defendants some combination of the Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co and affiliated entities. On June 10, 2013, the eleven complaints were consolidated by the Delaware Court of Chancery under the caption In re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-CS. On June 19, 2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement had been terminated pursuant to a Termination and Settlement Agreement. Defendants then moved to dismiss the consolidated proceeding. Lead Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to amend their operative complaint and an order requiring them to do so on before August 20, 2013 was entered by the Court on July 24, 2013. The Company has been sued by Microsoft in the N.D. Ga. for alleged copyright infringement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Licensing, GP v. Ebix, Inc., Case No. 1:13-CV-01655-CAP (N.D. Ga), filed May 15, 2013. The Company has not yet been able to determine exposure as the case concerns alleged underlicensing of Microsoft software. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on July 10, 2013. On August 5, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. The Company has and will continue to defend itself aggressively against Microsoft's claims. In the normal course of business, the Company is involved in various other claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate likely disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Lease Commitments—The Company leases office space under non-cancelable operating leases with expiration dates ranging through 2019, with various renewal options. Capital leases range from three to five years and are primarily for computer equipment. There were multiple assets under various individual capital leases at June 30, 2013 and 2012. Rental expense for office facilities and certain equipment subject to operating leases for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 was $3.3 million and $2.7 million, respectively. Self Insurance—For most of the Company’s U.S. employees the Company is self-insured for its health insurance program and has a stop loss policy that limits the individual liability to $100 thousand per person and the aggregate liability to 125% of the expected claims based upon the number of participants and historical claims. As of June 30, 2013, the amount accrued on the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet for the self-insured component of the Company’s employee health insurance was $277 thousand. The maximum potential estimated cumulative liability for the annual contract period, which ends in September 2013, is $3.0 million.

Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies-Between July 14, 2011 and July 21, 2011, securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaints assert claims against (i) the Company and the Company's CEO and CFO for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) the Company's CEO and CFO as alleged controlling persons. The complaints generally allege false statements in earnings reports, SEC filings, press releases, and other public statements that allegedly caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages. The New York action has been transferred to Georgia and has been consolidated with the Georgia action, now styled In re: Ebix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-02400-RSW (N.D. Ga.). A Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”) was filed by Plaintiffs on November 28, 2011. On January 12, 2012, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the CAC, which raised various defenses that the CAC failed to state a claim. On September 28, 2012, the Court entered an order denying the Company's Motion to Dismiss. On December 7, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. On June 19, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which is presently pending. On July 2, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification without prejudice to Plaintiffs' refiling their Motion should the Court deny, in whole or in part, Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On July 16, 2013, the Court entered a Stipulated Order Staying Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In connection with this shareholder class action suit, there have been three derivative complaints brought by certain shareholders on behalf of the Company, which name certain of the Company's officers and its entire board of directors as Defendants. The first such derivative action was brought by an alleged shareholder named Paul Nauman styled Nauman v. Raina, et al., Civil Action File No. 2011-cv-205276 (Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia). The second such derivative action was brought by an alleged shareholder named Gilbert Spagnola styled Spagnola v. Bhalla, et al., Civil action No. 1:13-CV-00062-RWS (N.D. Ga.), filed January 7, 2013. The third such derivative action was brought by an alleged shareholder named Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association of New York City Pension Fund styled Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund v. Raina, et al., Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-00246-RWS (N.D. Ga.), filed January 23, 2013. These derivative actions are based on substantially the same factual allegations in the shareholder class action suit, but also variously claim breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, the wasting of corporate assets, negligence, unjust enrichment by the Company's directors, and violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act. The Nauman case has been stayed pending the completion of expert discovery in the shareholder class action suit. On April 12, 2013, the Court entered an Order consolidating the Spagnola and Hotel derivative cases under the style In re Ebix, Inc. Derivative Litigation, File No. 1:13-CV-00062- RWS (N.D. Ga.), appointing Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as Lead Derivative Plaintiff, and appointing the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Lead Derivative Counsel and The Law Offices of David A. Bain LLC as Liaison Counsel. Lead Derivative Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class Action Complaint on May 20, 2013. Thereafter, the Court entered a Consent Order on June 4, 2013, setting a schedule for Lead Derivative Plaintiff to amend its complaint in light of the anticipated preliminary proxy related to the transaction announced on May 1, 2013 with affiliates of Goldman Sachs & Co. Based on the termination of the merger agreement relating to that transaction, as announced on June 19, 2013, the parties are conferring regarding future case scheduling. The Company denies any liability and intends to defend the federal and derivative actions vigorously. The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome for this matter is not estimable.

On June 6, 2013, the Company was notified that the U.S Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia had opened an investigation into allegations of intentional misconduct that had been brought to its attention from the pending shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company's directors and officers, the media and other sources. The Company is cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's office.

Following the announcement on May 1, 2013 of the execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of Goldman Sachs & Co., eleven putative class action complaints challenging the proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. These complaints name as defendants some combination of the Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co and affiliated entities. On June 10, 2013, the eleven complaints were consolidated by the Delaware Court of Chancery under the caption In re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-CS. On June 19, 2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement had been terminated pursuant to a Termination and Settlement Agreement. Defendants then moved to dismiss the consolidated proceeding. Lead Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to amend their operative complaint and an order requiring them to do so on before August 20, 2013 was entered by the Court on July 24, 2013.

The Company has been sued by Microsoft in the N.D. Ga. for alleged copyright infringement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Licensing, GP v. Ebix, Inc., Case No. 1:13-CV-01655-CAP (N.D. Ga), filed May 15, 2013. The Company has not yet been able to determine exposure as the case concerns alleged underlicensing of Microsoft software. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on July 10, 2013. On August 5, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. The Company has and will continue to defend itself aggressively against Microsoft's claims.

In the normal course of business, the Company is involved in various other claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate likely disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Lease Commitments—The Company leases office space under non-cancelable operating leases with expiration dates ranging through 2019, with various renewal options. Capital leases range from three to five years and are primarily for computer equipment. There were multiple assets under various individual capital leases at June 30, 2013 and 2012. Rental expense for office facilities and certain equipment subject to operating leases for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 was $3.3 million and $2.7 million, respectively.

Self Insurance—For most of the Company’s U.S. employees the Company is self-insured for its health insurance program and has a stop loss policy that limits the individual liability to $100 thousand per person and the aggregate liability to 125% of the expected claims based upon the number of participants and historical claims. As of June 30, 2013, the amount accrued on the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet for the self-insured component of the Company’s employee health insurance was $277 thousand. The maximum potential estimated cumulative liability for the annual contract period, which ends in September 2013, is $3.0 million.