Item 3. Legal Proceedings

We are party to legal proceedings with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of business, including those matters described below. With respect to the ongoing matters, we are 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 our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. This is primarily because the matters are generally in early stages and discovery has either not commenced or been completed. Although we believe we have strong defenses and intend to vigorously defend these matters, we could in the future incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Intellicorp Records, Inc. Litigation

On September 9, 2015, we were served with a nationwide putative class action complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County in Ohio naming the Company’s subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc. (“Intellicorp.”) titled Sherri Legrand v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. and The Cato Corporation et al. Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on October 8, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on November 5, 2015 (“Amended Complaint”), which like the prior complaint claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and alleges two putative class claims against Intellicorp, namely (i) a section 1681k(a) claim on behalf of all individuals who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Intellicorp which contained public record information in the “Government Sanctions” section of the report on or after September 4, 2013 and continuing through the date the class list is prepared and (ii) a section 1681e(b) claim on behalf of all individuals who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Intellicorp which contained public record information in the “Government Sanctions” section of the report where the address or social security number of the subject of the report do not match the social security number or address contained in the government database on or after September 4, 2013 and continuing through the date the class list is prepared. Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges that defendant Cato violated the FCRA by procuring consumer reports on the plaintiff and other class members without making the stand-alone disclosure required by FCRA section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Counts II and III allege that Intellicorp violated the FCRA section 1681e (b) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy of the adverse information included in its consumer reports and FCRA section 1681k (a) by failing to maintain strict procedures to assure that the public record information reported which was likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer was complete and up to date, respectively. The Amended Complaint

alleges that defendants acted willfully and seeks statutory damages for the classes in an amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and attorney’s fees.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.

On February 1, 2016, we were served with a nationwide putative class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina naming the Company’s subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc. (“Intellicorp.”) The complaint titled Frank DiSalvo v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and alleges a section 1681b(b)(1) claim on behalf of all individuals residing in the United States who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Intellicorp for employment purposes within the period prescribed by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681p without first obtaining from the user of the report a certification that such user had complied with the obligations under Section 1681b(b)(2) as to the subject of the consumer report. The class complaint alleges that Intellicorp violated the FCRA section 1681b(b)(1) by failing to obtain the required specific certification from its customers to whom Intellicorp furnished consumer reports as to each consumer report provided before providing the specific consumer report that was the subject of the certification. The complaint alleges that the violations were willful or in the alternative negligent and seeks statutory damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and attorney’s fees.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.

Xactware Solutions, Inc. Patent Litigation

On October 8, 2015, we were 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 alleges that the Company’s Roof InSight, Property InSight and Aerial Sketch products infringe seven patents owned by Eagle View and Pictometry namely, Patent Nos. 436, 840, 152, 880, 770, 732 and 454 (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit.”) On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) adding Patent Nos. 376 and 737 to the Patents in Suit. The Amended Complaint seeks an entry of judgment by the Court that defendants have and continue to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe, by way of inducement the Patents in Suit, permanent injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney’s fees.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.

Interthinx, Inc. Litigation

On April 20, 2015, we were served with a putative class action titled John Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. The plaintiff, a former employee of the Company’s former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in Missouri, filed the class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of all review appraisers and individuals holding comparable positions with different titles who were employed by Interthinx for the last three years nationwide and who were not paid overtime wages. The class complaint claims that the review appraiser employees were misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads a Collective Action under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.

On March 11, 2014, we sold 100 percent of the stock of Interthinx, Inc. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.

MediConnect Global, Inc. Litigation

On October 11, 2013, we were served with a summons and complaint in an action titled Naveen Trehan v. MediConnect Global, Inc., Amy Anderson and Verisk Health, Inc. filed on October 9, 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint, brought by a former minority shareholder of the Company’s subsidiary, MediConnect Global, Inc., arises from MediConnect’s buyout of Naveen Trehan and his family members’ shares on October 15, 2010. Plaintiff claims that the sale of the shares was based on MediConnect’s representations concerning third parties that had expressed interest in an acquisition, merger or investment in MediConnect at that time. Plaintiff claims that MediConnect did not disclose the Company, which purchased MediConnect on March 23, 2012, as a possible suitor. The complaint alleges four causes of action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against MediConnect and Amy Anderson for failure to disclose the Company's interest in acquiring, merging with or investing in MediConnect prior to the buyout of his shares; (2) fraud against Amy Anderson and MediConnect for intentionally providing false information to plaintiff with the purpose of inducing him to agree to sell his shares at an artificially low price; (3) negligent misrepresentation against Amy Anderson and MediConnect for their negligent failure to discover and disclose the Company's

interest in acquiring MediConnect prior to the buyout of plaintiff’s shares and (4) a violation of SEC Rule 10b-5 against Amy Anderson and MediConnect for defrauding plaintiff and failing to disclose material information in connection with the sale of securities. The complaint seeks joint and several recoveries from Amy Anderson and MediConnect for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and disgorgement of all profits earned through the investment of plaintiff’s funds, attorneys’ fees, interest and an order from the court that plaintiff’s funds be held in a constructive trust. On November 2, 2015, the court issued a judgement in favor of the defendants and dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on November 30, 2015.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.

Insurance Services Office, Inc. Litigation

On August 1, 2014, we were served with an Amended Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120 defendants, including us and our subsidiary, Insurance Services Office, Inc. ("ISO"). Except for us, ISO and the defendant Acord Corporation, which provides standard forms to assist in insurance transactions, most of the other defendants are property and casualty insurance companies that plaintiffs claim conspired to underpay property damage claims. Plaintiffs claim that we and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common law. On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which was re-filed by plaintiffs to correct errors as the Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint similarly alleges that the defendants conspired to underpay property damage claims, but does not specifically allege what role we or ISO played in the alleged conspiracy. It claims that we and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common law, and seeks all available relief including, injunctive, statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as attorneys’ fees. On January 15, 2016, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint and plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 16,2016

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.

On February 19, 2016, we were served with a notice of a summons and complaint filed on January 29, 2016 against our subsidiary Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut titled Halloran et al. v. Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co. et al. The putative class action is brought on behalf of four policyholders and similarly situated policyholders in Eastern Connecticut who complain that their homeowner’s insurance carriers denied their claims for the deterioration and collapse of their foundations caused by defective concrete. The lawsuit alleges a breach of contract claim against insurers Harleysville, Nationwide and Kemper and an anticipatory breach of contract claim against insurer MetLife. It also alleges that ISO as the drafter of the standardized policy language at issue participated with over 100 insurance companies to deny claims for defective concrete and collapsed foundations and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices (CUTPA) and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA). The plaintiffs ask that the Court certify a class of persons similarly situated and seek recovery from over 100 insurance carriers equal to the cost for the replacement of their concrete foundations, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.