Verisk Analytics, Inc. Commitments Disclosure

21.    Commitments and Contingencies:

 

We are a party to legal proceedings, investigations, examinations, subpoenas, third party requests, government requests, regulatory proceedings and other claims with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below (collectively, “Ongoing Matters”). With respect to 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 Ongoing Matters or the impact these matters may have on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Although we believe we have strong defenses and have appealed adverse rulings to us, 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.

 

Telematics Litigation

 

As of April 19, 2024, various Plaintiffs filed a total of twenty separate putative class action lawsuits, sixteen against General Motors LLC (“GM”), OnStar LLC (“OnStar”), LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (“LexisNexis”) and Verisk Analytics Inc. in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Eastern District of Michigan, Central District of California, District of New Jersey, Southern District of New York, Northern District of Alabama, Northern District of Illinois and District of South Carolina, and four against Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai”) and Verisk in the Central District of California and District of New Jersey, all of which have been dismissed to date. The Complaints generally allege that the auto manufacturer Defendants collected consumers’ driver behavior data through vehicle software, transmitted it to LexisNexis and Verisk, and that LexisNexis and Verisk shared the data with auto insurance companies, without the individuals’ knowledge or consent. Plaintiffs seek certification of both nationwide classes of individuals and subclasses of various state residents who had their vehicle’s driving data collected by Defendants and shared with a third party without their consent. The Plaintiffs also seek actual, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs. On June 7, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all GM-related lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (In Re: Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Litigation, MDL Case No. 1:24-md-03115-TWT). All discovery proceedings have been stayed. The matters pending against Verisk in the MDL were voluntarily dismissed on December 13, 2024, and a new putative class action, Adam Dinitz, et al. v. Verisk Analytics, Inc. (“Dinitz”), was filed in the District of New Jersey federal court, Case No. 24-11157, to include those dismissed matters and additional named Plaintiffs. Dinitz was transferred to the Northern District of Georgia to be part of the consolidated MDL. A related amended Master Consolidated class action Complaint was also filed in the MDL on December 13, 2024. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on April 14, 2025. On October 2, 2025, several Plaintiffs brought a lawsuit alleging similar claims against GM, OnStar, LexisNexis, and Verisk in the matter, McBride, et al v. General Motors, et al., in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 3:25-cv-02619-AJB-MMP. On October 10, 2025, those Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Potential Tag Along, seeking a transfer of their lawsuit to the MDL proceeding. The transfer Order was finalized on October 28, 2025. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to these and other associated matters, as they are still in their early stages.

 

Indemnification Claim

 

In December 2023, we received a Notice of Indemnification claim from the current owner of our former healthcare data analytics subsidiary, which was divested in 2016, relating to an ongoing tax investigation by the Nepalese tax authorities. Pursuant to the 2016 sale agreement, we are subject to indemnification obligations with respect to certain pre-closing tax liabilities of the divested entity. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter, as it is still in its early stages.

 

Commercial Litigation

 

We are a party to contractual disputes that involve alleged breaches of contract or disagreements regarding performance or interpretation. While we dispute the allegations in these matters and intend to defend our position vigorously, the ultimate outcome of such disputes is inherently uncertain. The resolution of one or more of these matters could, individually or in the aggregate, result in liabilities, damages, settlement costs, or other losses that may be material to our consolidated financial position.

 

On  February 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, DDS Striker Holdings LLC and Data Driven Holdings LLC against Verisk Analytics, Inc. and Insurance Service Office, in the Superior Court of Delaware, Case No. N24C-02-130 VLM CCLD. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, common law fraud, and civil conspiracy in connection with their inability to meet the post-closing earn-out targets negotiated as part of our acquisition of Data Driven Safety, LLC. Plaintiffs seek rescissory, out-of-pocket and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees, costs and other expenses. We filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, which was fully briefed as of June 21, 2024, and was partially denied on August 29, 2024. The parties have settled in principle and are finalizing settlement paperwork. 

    

Data Privacy Litigation

 

On or about  February 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, Atlas Data Privacy Corp., et al. v. Verisk Analytics, Inc., et al., in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Case No. MID-L-000903-24, alleging violations of Daniel’s Law. Atlas claims to be an “assignee” of claims of approximately 19,640 individuals who are “covered persons” under Daniel’s Law, allegedly enacted to provide judicial and law enforcement officers and their family members with the right to prevent disclosure of their personal information and to enforce those rights against uncooperative data brokers. It is alleged that Defendants have violated Daniel’s Law by failing to respond and comply with their written request to Defendants to cease publicly disclosing or re-disclosing their protected information. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in the amount of $1,000 per violation under the statute, punitive damages, injunctive relief ordering compliance with Daniel’s Law, permanent injunctive relief, including the appointment of a qualified independent expert to ensure compliance with Daniel’s Law, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. On June 21, 2024, the court issued a “lack of prosecution” warning to Atlas, advising that the case will be dismissed without prejudice if service is not effectuated by August 20, 2024. The case was dismissed without prejudice on August 26, 2024. On October 11, 2024, Plaintiffs served Verisk with the Summons and Complaint, indicating their intent to revise the lawsuit. We filed a motion to dismiss, and alternatively, a request to stay the case pending a ruling on constitutionality of Daniel's Law by the 3rd Circuit in a separate Atlas lawsuit. The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office moved to intervene and also sought a stay pending a constitutionality decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a separate matter. The court issued an Order staying all discovery until further ordered by the court. On November 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an application to classify and consolidate the pending 111 Daniel's Law cases into a Multi-County Litigation ("MCL"). On January 4, 2026, Verisk joined in opposition to the MCL application. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter, as the case is still in its early stages.

 

Trade Secrets Litigation

 

On March 14, 2024, JP Morgan Chase Bank (“JPMC”) filed a lawsuit, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Argus Information & Advisory Services Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc. and Trans Union LLC, in the District of Delaware federal court, Case No. 1:24-cv-00348-SB, alleging that Defendants misappropriated JPMC’s trade secret data in violation of federal and state laws.  JPMC seeks lost profits, unjust enrichment, a reasonable royalty, exemplary damages, attorney fees and costs, as well as an injunction against Defendants to enjoin any further improper conduct allegedly stemming from Argus’ data use practices.  Following a partial denial of our motion to dismiss the initial complaint, JPMC amended its complaint on September 5, 2025 to add new allegations supporting state law-based trade secrets claims.  On October 17, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which remains pending.  At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the reasonably possible loss related to this matter, as the case is still in its early stages.

 

Mergers and Acquisitions Litigation

 

On July 29, 2025, Verisk Analytics, Inc. and ExactLogix, Inc. (d/b/a “AccuLynx”) signed an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Agreement") for a transaction pursuant to which Verisk would acquire AccuLynx.  On December 26, 2025, Verisk terminated the Agreement in accordance with its terms.  On that same day, AccuLynx sent a letter to Verisk alleging that the termination was legally ineffective and constituted a breach of the Agreement.  Thereafter, on January 3, 2026, AccuLynx sent a demand letter seeking Verisk’s compliance with the terms of the Agreement or payment in lieu thereof.  Verisk filed a declaratory judgment action on January 7, 2026, in the Delaware Court of Chancery asking the court to determine that Verisk’s termination of the Agreement is valid and effective in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.  On January 21, 2026, AccuLynx filed counterclaims against Verisk in the declaratory judgment action, asserting that Verisk has breached the parties' Agreement and that AccuLynx is entitled to specific performance of the Agreement and/or monetary damages. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter, as the case is still in its early stages.