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 our 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 ("FCRA") 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 Intellicorp. The complaint titled Frank DiSalvo v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. claims violations of the FCRA 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. On April 18, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all proceedings pending the resolution of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v. Robins, No. 13-1339. After Spokeo was decided on May 16, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their federal court complaint and filed a virtually identical complaint in Ohio State court on May 27, 2016. Defendants removed that complaint to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 1, 2016, which on defendant’s motion dismissed the complaint for failure to allege Article III standing and remanded the case to Ohio state court on September 27, 2016. The parties agreed to resolve this matter for a non-material amount in the Settlement Agreement and Release executed on November 30, 2016.

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 our 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 (“First Amended Complaint”) adding Patent Nos. 376 and 737 to the Patents in Suit. The First 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 our 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. The parties agreed to resolve this matter with our contribution of a non-material amount in the Class Action Settlement Agreement executed on November 8, 2016. The hearing for the preliminary approval of the settlement is scheduled for February 21, 2017.

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 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. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this dismissal on February 16, 2016. The Court granted defendants’ motion to strike the motion for reconsideration on March 2, 2016 and gave plaintiffs leave to file another motion for reconsideration in accordance with the rules which plaintiffs filed on March 11, 2016 and, which was denied by the Court on April 25, 2016. On April 1, 2016, plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s January 15, 2016 Order, which dismissed all claims in the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs also filed an appeal of the Court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit consolidated with the appeal of the Court’s January 15, 2016 dismissal. Appellants filed their brief in support of the consolidated appeal on July 21, 2016 and Appellees filed their brief in response on September 21, 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 ISO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut titled Halloran et al. v. Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co. et al. As alleged in the First Amended Complaint, the putative class action is brought by four policyholders on behalf of a class of similarly situated policyholders in eastern Connecticut who allege that their homeowner’s insurance carriers have denied or will deny their claims for damage to their homes caused by defective concrete. The lawsuit alleges a breach of contract claim against certain insurers and seeks declaratory relief as to more than 100 other insurers. It also alleges that ISO as the drafter of the standardized policy language at issue 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 relief in the form of the cost for the replacement of their concrete foundations and a declaratory judgment that all of the defendant insurance carriers are obligated to provide coverage for claims resulting from the defective concrete as well as, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.

On March 17, 2016 plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint asserting federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, adding a number of insurer defendants and amending their damages claim to include punitive damages. After defendants indicated that they would be filing motions to dismiss the first amended complaint at a Rule 16 Conference on April 12, 2016, the Court gave plaintiffs until May 6, 2016 to move for leave to file a second amended complaint. On May 6, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Motion to amend the first amended complaint with a proposed second amended complaint, which did not name ISO or us as a defendant. No opposition was filed to the motion to amend, which was granted on October 4, 2016. Instead of filing a second amended complaint, plaintiffs, in a joint motion for the modification of the case schedule filed on October 13, 2016, expressed their intention to move for leave to file a third amended complaint in order to drop certain additional defendants and to add other named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint which does not name us as a defendant is pending before the District Court.

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