Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for Kentucky

What this calculator does

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Cost Of Delay calculator.

DocketMath’s Cost of Delay Modeler (Kentucky: US-KY) helps you estimate the economic impact of time—the “cost of waiting”—by modeling how delays affect outcomes over time.

In Kentucky criminal and related time horizons, many events are constrained by statutes of limitation (“SOL”). This guide focuses on the Kentucky SOL structure reflected in the modeler so you can translate calendar time into dollars (or other measurable units).

At a high level, the tool helps you do three things:

• Convert a delay timeline into a monetized cost
• Test “what-if” scenarios (e.g., faster vs. slower case resolution)
• Check consistency with Kentucky SOL time windows using the model’s built-in logic for KY statutes

The modeler’s KY settings align with:

• KRS 500.020 — SOL: 5 years

  • Exception set includes P3
• KRS 500.050 — SOL: 5 years

  • Exception set includes P2
• KRS 500.050 — SOL: 1 year

  • Exception set includes P4
• KRS 500.050(2) — SOL: 1 year

  • Exception set includes V3
• Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-725 — 5 years

  • Exception set includes D3

When to use it

Use DocketMath’s Cost of Delay Modeler for Kentucky when you need a structured way to answer questions like these:

• Case management planning: “If our resolution slips by 60 days, what’s the estimated economic cost of that delay?”
• Negotiation preparation: “How much value is created by speeding up a step by one quarter?”
• Budgeting and staffing assumptions: “If delay risk increases, how should we adjust resources?”
• Portfolio-level comparisons: “Which matters are most sensitive to time?”

You’ll also want it when your workflow involves Kentucky SOL time windows, because the tool can help you keep modeling consistent with these statutory ceilings and sub-horizons:

• A 5-year SOL framework under KRS 500.020
• A 5-year or 1-year SOL structure depending on how KRS 500.050 and its subsections apply
• A 5-year SOL horizon for covered commercial-contract claims under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-725

A practical approach:

• If your timeline could plausibly approach a 1-year or 5-year boundary, model “cost of delay” against multiple end dates.
• If your scenario is comfortably inside a statutory window, use the tool to quantify business impact rather than SOL risk.

Step-by-step example

Below is a concrete example for Kentucky using the model’s KY SOL horizons. The goal is to show how inputs affect outputs, not to replicate any court decision.

Example: Modeling delay cost over a 5-year horizon (KRS 500.020)

Assumptions for the example

• Matter type / timeline aligns with 5 years under KRS 500.020
• You’re estimating the cost of delay for a scenario with:

  • Original expected resolution: 24 months after a baseline date
  • Revised expected resolution: 30 months after the baseline date
• You estimate the time cost rate as a monthly amount:

  • $1,250 per month (administrative, opportunity cost, or other internal cost proxy)
• You want to compare the economic cost of:

  • Resolving at 24 months
  • Resolving at 30 months

Step 1 — Choose the Kentucky SOL framework

• Select the KY SOL horizon consistent with your matter: KRS 500.020 (5 years)
  The model’s built-in KY references include the 5-year time window and relevant exception set (P3).

Step 2 — Enter your timeline inputs

• Baseline: Month 0
• Expected resolution: Month 24
• Delayed resolution: Month 30

Step 3 — Enter the “cost per time” input

• Cost rate: $1,250/month
• (If your model supports different cost components, you can split costs into categories—like “staff time,” “external vendor,” “operational disruption.” The key is that the model converts time into total cost.)

Step 4 — Calculate the incremental cost of the delay

• Difference in time = 30 − 24 = 6 months
• Incremental cost = 6 × $1,250 = $7,500

Step 5 — Sanity-check against statutory ceilings Even though the tool is monetizing delay, it’s also helpful to ensure your planned end dates don’t conflict with the model’s KY SOL horizon:

• A 30-month end date is within the 5-year (60-month) SOL framework under KRS 500.020.

Common scenarios

The Cost of Delay Modeler supports scenario comparison. Here are Kentucky-focused patterns that commonly show up in planning workflows.

1) 5-year vs. 1-year SOL horizons (KRS 500.020 and KRS 500.050)

Kentucky’s SOL time windows can shift significantly depending on which statutory framework applies.

Key modeled anchors

• KRS 500.020: 5 years (exception set includes P3)
• KRS 500.050: 5 years (exception set includes P2)
• KRS 500.050: 1 year (exception set includes P4)
• KRS 500.050(2): 1 year (exception set includes V3)
• Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-725: 5 years (exception set includes D3)

How this affects modeling

• A matter modeled under a 1-year horizon is usually more sensitive to month-to-month delay.
• Even a “small” delay difference (e.g., 4–6 months) can represent a meaningful fraction of the remaining time window.

2) Contract / commercial timing modeled with UCC-style SOL (Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-725)

If your time-horizon concern relates to contractual claims covered by Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-725, the modeler references a 5-year SOL horizon (exception set D3).

Modeling best practice

• Use a consistent baseline date concept in your workflow (the model can’t determine legally correct start dates, but your internal timeline needs to be consistent to make comparisons meaningful).
• Compare resolution dates across a range (e.g., 12 months vs. 18 months vs. 30 months) while keeping the cost-per-time assumptions stable.

3) “Approaching a boundary” decision support

Many users come to the tool after noticing that a timeline is nearing a modeled boundary.

Decision prompts the tool helps answer

• “If we lose 90 days, does the estimated cost jump materially?”
• “Which action reduces delay the most in economic terms?”

How to structure the comparison

• Run at least two scenarios:

  • Accelerated resolution
  • Delayed resolution
• Keep the cost rate constant so the difference reflects timing only.

4) Budget justification for process improvement

The modeler works well when you’re trying to justify spending on workflow improvements:

• Added case staffing
• Faster discovery turnaround
• Scheduling system changes
• External vendor engagement

In that case, you can treat the improvement cost as an upfront number and compare it to the reduction in delay cost.

Quick comparison table (example structure)

This format lets you communicate the “cost of delay” clearly to operations, leadership, or project stakeholders.

Tips for accuracy

To get more reliable outputs from DocketMath’s Cost of Delay Modeler for Kentucky, focus on consistency and disciplined assumptions.

1) Use a single baseline concept across scenarios

Pick one baseline date in your workflow (Month 0) and reuse it for every scenario. If you change the baseline between runs, the “cost of delay” differences may reflect your modeling choices rather than the effect of time.

2) Match your model selection to the KY horizon you intend to test

Kentucky SOL time anchors represented in the modeler include:

• **5 years (KRS 500.020)
• **5 years (KRS 500.050)
• **1 year (KRS 500.050)
• **1 year (KRS 500.050(2))
• **5 years (Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-725)

If your scenario is closer to a 1-year window, you should expect stronger sensitivity to delays.

3) Separate “cost rate” from “timeline”

Don’t mix assumptions:

• Timeline inputs should describe how long things take.
• Cost inputs should describe what those months are worth in your organization

Sources and references

Start with the primary authority for Kentucky and confirm the effective date before relying on any output. If the rule has been amended, update the inputs and rerun the calculation.

• Primary authority reference

Related reading

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