Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for Connecticut

What this calculator does

DocketMath’s Cost of Delay Modeler for Connecticut (US-CT) helps you quantify the economic impact of time—so you can compare options that affect when a claim is resolved or when obligations become enforceable.

This guide focuses on a common modeling goal:

• Convert delay (time lost) into cost (money lost or risk-adjusted value lost)
• Test different assumptions (rate, compounding, start/end dates) to see which scenario drives the largest cost

The model is built around inputs you control, then applies a time-to-dollar calculation. If you change an assumption—such as the monthly cost of carrying a project or the cost of waiting for payment—the output cost changes immediately, helping you evaluate tradeoffs quickly.

The statute timing context for Connecticut

Many Connecticut disputes involve deadlines that can depend on the statute of limitations (SOL). Your SOL assumptions can change when something becomes time-barred, which in turn changes when parties may reasonably expect resolution.

Two Connecticut SOL benchmarks frequently used in case planning:

• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a: 3 years (listed as exception M6)
  Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-52/chapter-926/section-52-577a/
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-193: 5 years (listed as exception P1

To keep your model consistent, use these as timing anchors when you model “cost of delay” across alternative schedules.

When to use it

Use DocketMath’s Cost of Delay Modeler when you need to put a dollar figure on timing—especially in Connecticut workflows where SOL deadlines can shape litigation posture.

Common use cases:

• Strategy comparisons
  Example: Compare a faster resolution path vs. a slower path with additional procedural steps.
• Budgeting and project planning
  Example: Model the carrying cost of continuing operations while waiting for an outcome.
• Settlement discussions
  Example: Estimate how an additional 90 days of delay changes the economic stakes.
• Case timeline planning anchored to SOL
  If you’re mapping potential filing windows, model how pushing resolution past certain time milestones affects value.

Connecticut timing anchors to model

Because the SOL can be 3 years under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a and 5 years under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-193, you can model delay in relation to these time horizons.

Below is a practical way to use those anchors:

Step-by-step example

Below is a concrete example you can replicate in DocketMath. The goal is to demonstrate how your inputs drive outputs.

You can jump to the tool here: **/tools/cost-of-delay

Scenario: delay in a dispute outcome

Assume you want to model the “cost of delay” for a resolution that happens later than expected.

• You believe the dispute could resolve in 18 months, but it actually resolves in 27 months.
• During delay, money tied up in operations and uncertainty has a cost.
• You estimate that the delay costs you $12,000 per month in aggregate (opportunity cost, financing, staffing, or similar economic friction).

Step 1: Choose your start and end timing

Pick dates consistent with your situation. For modeling, months are easier than exact days:

• Start (expected resolution): Month 0
• End (actual resolution): Month 27
• Expected time to resolution: 18 months

So, the delay relative to your expectation is:

• 27 − 18 = 9 months of delay

Step 2: Input delay into the model

In DocketMath’s Cost of Delay Modeler, you’ll typically provide:

• Delay length (or the two dates, depending on the input style)
• Cost rate (e.g., dollars per month)
• Optional settings like compounding and discounting (if present in the tool UI)

For this example, set:

• Delay: 9 months
• Monthly cost: $12,000

Step 3: Use the model’s formula to compute cost

If the model uses a simple linear structure (common for cost-of-waiting):

• Cost of delay = Monthly cost × Delay months
• = $12,000 × 9
• = $108,000

If the tool supports compounding (less common for day-to-day carrying costs, but sometimes used for financing or interest-rate effects), you would instead plug in:

• an effective monthly rate, and
• whether the monthly cost should compound.

Either way, you’ll get an output figure you can compare across scenarios.

Step 4: Run an “SOL-anchored” comparison (Connecticut)

Now connect the model to Connecticut timing anchors to stress-test urgency.

Suppose you’re planning a timeline that could align with either:

• 3-year window under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a (exception M6)
• 5-year window under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-193 (exception P1)

Model two alternatives:

1. Short-horizon plan (3 years)

   • A delay pushes your resolution from month 30 to 39 (9 months)
2. Long-horizon plan (5 years)

   • A delay pushes your resolution from month 54 to 63 (still 9 months)

Even with the same delay length, the practical impact may differ if your assumptions for:

• carrying costs,
• discounting,
• or risk premium

change over time.

This is where the model shines: it forces you to be explicit about assumptions rather than relying on intuition.

Common scenarios

Below are high-frequency scenarios where Cost of Delay Modeling helps, plus the kinds of inputs you’ll adjust.

1) “Fast resolution” vs. “litigation drag”

Goal: Compare two resolution timelines that differ by 60–180 days.

Typical modeling moves:

• Keep monthly cost constant
• Change only the end date or delay length

Checkboxes to run through before computing:

2) Settlement negotiation cycles

Negotiations often move in rounds. If a second mediation pushes resolution by 90 days, the model can quantify incremental cost.

Model inputs to vary:

• Delay in days/months
• Any step-costs (if the tool supports a one-time “event cost”)
• Optional compounding/discounting

3) SOL-driven urgency planning in Connecticut

Because Connecticut has 3-year and 5-year SOL benchmarks under the cited statutes, teams sometimes create internal timelines that aim to avoid last-minute dynamics.

Connecticut anchors you can model:

• 3 years under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a (exception M6)
• 5 years under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-193 (exception P1)

How to use them in a cost model (without turning it into legal advice):

• Translate the anchor into a timeline window in your planning model
• Evaluate how delay within that window increases economic cost
• Re-run the model if your assumed “latest practical resolution date” shifts

4) Cash flow and financing effects

If your organization finances litigation-related expenses (or if delay affects revenue timing), you may model:

• interest-like effects,
• risk premium changes,
• or compounding costs.

In this scenario:

• use a cost input that reflects capital cost rather than a generic “time cost,”
• ensure the tool settings match your economic logic.

Tips for accuracy

These tips focus on producing outputs you can trust and compare—not on legal conclusions.

Keep your time measurement consistent

• Decide whether you measure delay in:

  • days,
  • months, or
  • dates with day-count conventions.
• Use the same unit across all scenarios.

Checklist:

Use cost rates that match the delay mechanism

A monthly number can represent different economics. Be clear:

• If it’s opportunity cost, keep it constant (unless your premise changes).
• If it’s financing cost, use a rate-based approach if the tool supports it.
• If it’s resource burden, monthly cost can be more appropriate than interest.

Stress-test with 3 assumption sets

Instead of one estimate, run three:

1. Conservative: lower monthly cost or shorter effective delay
2. Expected: your best estimate
3. High-cost: higher monthly cost or longer effective delay

This produces a range you can use in negotiations and internal planning.

Validate with a sanity check

Related reading

• Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for Alabama
• Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for Arizona
• Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for California