Why Structured Settlement results differ in Arizona

5 min read

Published April 15, 2026 • By DocketMath Team

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change frequently — verify all citations with current official sources.

The top 5 reasons results differ

If you run the Structured Settlement calculator in DocketMath for Arizona (US-AZ), you may notice that outcomes don’t match another person’s results—even when the headline numbers (like settlement amount, payment duration, or start date) look similar. In Arizona, the biggest cause is that jurisdiction-aware rules and time-based inputs interact in ways that shift totals.

Note: DocketMath is built to help you model outcomes; this is not legal advice. Use these diagnostics to understand why two calculations diverge, then confirm specifics with the case record.

1) Arizona’s SOL baseline is general (not claim-specific)

A key driver in Arizona is the time anchor the calculator uses when a specific rule isn’t provided. In this diagnostic baseline, Arizona’s period is:

General SOL Period: 2 years
General Statute: A.R.S. § 13-107(A)
- No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found for this diagnostic baseline, so DocketMath should treat 2 years as the default when you don’t have a more specific rule driving the timing.
  Source: https://www.findlaw.com/state/arizona-law/arizona-criminal-statute-of-limitations-laws.html?utm_source=openai

How this changes results: if one run effectively uses the default 2-year SOL baseline while another run uses a different timing assumption (such as a different accrual date or effective start), the timeline in the model shifts. That shift affects discounting and therefore the projected present value totals.

2) Accrual/start date assumptions shift the payment timing window

Structured-settlement math is timing-sensitive. Even a single calendar month difference in any “start” concept can move totals:

claim accrual (or incident/injury date)
demand timing
settlement execution date
first payment date (or what the model treats as the first payment moment)

What DocketMath does: it uses your configured dates to determine the effective timing window for projections in the structured-settlement calculator. Different “start” inputs change how long each future payment is discounted.

3) “First payment” vs “issuance/establishment” date mismatch

People often enter different dates depending on what documents they have:

annuity/settlement establishment (issuance) date
the first scheduled payment date

If one calculation treats the first scheduled payment as the start while another treats issuance/establishment as the start, the modeled present value can differ materially.

Typical result pattern: the later the effective start date, the less time for discounting—often increasing present value.

4) Payment structure inputs (frequency, amounts, escalation) aren’t identical

Two settlements that look similar on a summary can still differ in the model inputs, such as:

payment frequency (monthly vs annual)
fixed payment vs step-up/escalation
total number of payments vs end date
any lump sum portion

Even when nominal totals appear close, changing the distribution of payments over time can change the discounted total.

5) Interest/discount rate assumptions differ

If the dates and payment schedule match but totals still differ, the disagreement is often the rate.

Common causes include:

a default discount/interest rate vs a user-entered rate
a rate assumption derived from a curve or other input

Diagnostic signal: same dates + same payment schedule, but different output totals → check the discount rate used by the calculator.

How to isolate the variable

The practical goal is a controlled comparison: change one input at a time in DocketMath, and watch how the output moves.

Freeze the jurisdiction and tool settings so both runs use the same rule set.
Compare one input at a time (dates, rates, amounts) and re-run after each change.
Review the breakdown to see which segment or assumption drives the difference.

A. Lock the Arizona SOL baseline first

Because this diagnostic uses Arizona’s general default timing anchor:

2 years under A.R.S. § 13-107(A)
and no claim-type-specific sub-rule is included in this baseline diagnostic

Make sure both runs are using the same SOL timing basis. If the other person used a different claim-specific limitation (not included here), your timelines may differ even if the rest of the math is identical.

B. Compare these inputs side-by-side

Use the calculator fields to verify they match exactly across runs:

Accrual/incident date
Settlement execution date
First payment date
End date / number of payments
Payment frequency (monthly vs annual)
Escalation/step-up (if applicable)
Lump sum amount (if any)
Discount/interest rate used in the model

C. Run a quick “two-run” diagnostic

Run 1: Enter your current inputs.
Run 2: Copy Run 1, then change only one variable—try these in order:
- Change first payment date by +30 days
- Change discount rate by +0.5%
- Change payment frequency (annual ↔ monthly)

Interpretation:

If the +30-day change explains the direction/size of the difference, it’s likely a timeline issue.
If the +0.5% rate change matches the difference, it’s likely a valuation assumption issue.

For direct modeling, use: Structured Settlement Tool.

Next steps

To get consistent results for Arizona in DocketMath:

Write down your date chain: incident → accrual (if used) → settlement → first payment.
Confirm the SOL timing basis: use 2 years under A.R.S. § 13-107(A) as the default here, and remember this baseline does not include a claim-type-specific override.
Standardize schedule inputs: frequency, step-up/escalation, number of payments/end date, and any lump sum.
Match the discount/interest rate: ensure both runs use the same rate assumption.

If your goal is reconciliation between two results, the fastest path is usually align dates first, then align payment schedule, then align the discount rate.