Worked example: Damages Allocation in Colorado

Example inputs

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Damages Allocation calculator.

This worked example shows how DocketMath allocates damages in a Colorado civil case when you provide multiple damages components, some of which may be treated differently for purposes of interest. This is a practical illustration—not legal advice—meant to help you understand how a jurisdiction-aware workflow can affect the outputs you see in the calculator.

Scenario (Colorado; US-CO)

A plaintiff claims economic loss and asks for damages plus post-judgment interest. The case includes:

• Contract damages (expected to be fixed by the court’s calculation)
• Pre-judgment interest items (if applicable)
• Attorney’s fees (if authorized by statute/contract, depending on the underlying claim)
• Costs
• A judgment date used to compute interest timing

Inputs you’ll enter into DocketMath

Go to the tool page (/tools/damages-allocation) and enter the components as shown below. The goal is to mirror the same “principal vs. non-principal” structure the calculator uses so you can observe how interest changes when particular components are handled differently.

Colorado rule touchpoints (how the calculator is designed to behave)

Colorado’s post-judgment interest framework is guided by Colorado Revised Statutes § 5-12-106, which sets the statutory interest rate for judgments. In general, courts apply interest after the judgment is entered at the statutory rate, using the judgment date as the post-judgment accrual anchor.

DocketMath doesn’t replace a court’s final determinations; it helps you allocate and estimate based on the components you provide and the jurisdiction-aware logic built into the calculator.

Example run

To run this example in DocketMath, open the tool here: /tools/damages-allocation.

Run the Damages Allocation calculator using the example inputs above. Review the breakdown for intermediate steps (segments, adjustments, or rate changes) so you can see how each input moves the output. Save the result for reference and compare it to your actual scenario.

Step-by-step: what DocketMath does with your inputs

1. Allocates principal vs. non-principal components

   • Principal bucket = contract damages ($140,000) + other economic loss ($40,000) = $180,000
   • Non-principal components are tracked separately:

     • Pre-judgment interest requested: $12,500
     • Attorney’s fees requested: $25,000
     • Costs requested: $3,200

2. Computes interest windows using your dates

   • Start date for interest computations: 2023-06-01
   • Judgment date (post-judgment anchor): 2025-10-15
   • This is where jurisdiction-aware logic can affect the outputs, because interest timing determines how much time accrues at each stage.

3. Applies the Colorado-default interest framework

   • Interest calculations are performed under the Colorado mode (US-CO), consistent with how C.R.S. § 5-12-106 is typically implemented for post-judgment interest.

Output: allocated damages summary (example results)

Below is a representative allocation layout. Your numeric interest totals may differ depending on the calculator’s rate/date assumptions and how particular components are treated for interest purposes.

Estimated totals the calculator reports

In this run, DocketMath returns numbers you can use for drafting and settlement math, including:

• Total principal (principal bucket): $180,000
• Non-principal components: $32,700 ($12,500 + $25,000 + $3,200)
• Estimated post-judgment interest: computed by the tool using the Colorado-default rate and your date window
• Estimated judgment total including interest: principal + non-principal + estimated interest

Sensitivity check

Small input changes can materially swing interest totals, especially when they alter:

• the length of time between the relevant start/judgment dates, or
• whether a component is treated as principal versus separate for interest calculation purposes.

To test sensitivity, change one high-impact input (like the rate, start date, or cap) and rerun the calculation. Compare the outputs side by side so you can see how small input shifts affect the result.

Change 1: Move judgment date by ~60 days

Keep amounts the same, but change:

• Judgment date from 2025-10-15 → 2026-12-14

Expected effect in DocketMath output:

• Post-judgment interest estimate increases because the accrual period is longer.
• Principal allocation stays the same.
• Non-principal components remain unchanged in amount; only the interest math should change.

Checklist for your model:

Change 2: Increase attorney’s fees by $10,000

Modify:

• Attorney’s fees from $25,000 → $35,000

Expected effect:

• The “Attorney’s fees” line item increases by $10,000.
• The impact on interest depends on how the calculator’s logic treats fees for interest purposes:

  • If fees are interest-bearing in the model after judgment, interest total rises.
  • If fees remain excluded from the interest base, the interest total may not change.

Use this comparison approach:

Change 3: Set pre-judgment interest requested to $0

Modify:

• Pre-judgment interest from $12,500 → $0

Expected effect:

• Subtotal before interest drops by $12,500.
• Post-judgment interest estimates might still be based on principal only, or could change depending on how the tool models the relationship between pre-judgment interest entries and the interest base.

Pitfall to avoid:

Mini “sensitivity snapshot” (what to look for)

When you rerun the calculator, focus on these three outputs:

1. Principal bucket total (should remain stable unless you changed damage amounts)
2. Estimated post-judgment interest (should change with date changes and any interest-base treatment)
3. Estimated total including interest (the combined view)

Related reading

• Damages Allocation Guide for Alabama — Comparative Fault Rules
• Damages Allocation Guide for Alaska — Comparative Fault Rules
• Damages Allocation Guide for American Samoa — Comparative Fault Rules