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., or 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, or Amended Complaint, which like the prior complaint claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or 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.

On April 24, 2017, the parties agreed to resolve the litigation in a Settlement Agreement and Release and plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement on the same day. The settlement provides for a non-material cash payment by us, as well as certain non-monetary relief. The District Court granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval on April 25, 2017 and issued its Final Approval Order on October 31, 2017.

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. On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a 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. On May 17, 2017, the District Court so ordered a Joint Stipulated Order of Partial Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing all claims or assertions pertaining to Pictometry Patents Nos. 880 and 732 and certain enumerated claims or assertions pertaining to Eagle View Patents Nos. 436, 840, 152, 770, 454, 376 and 737, or collectively the “Patents in Suit”.

At this time, it is not reasonably 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 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 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 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. On April 6, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed the Court’s dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint. Appellants filed a motion for en banc reconsideration of the 10th Circuit’s affirmance of the dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint which was denied on May 26, 2017. Appellants filed their petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court on August 24, 2017 which was denied on October 30, 2017. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing to the Supreme Court on November 27, 2017 which was denied on January 8, 2018.