Worked example: Damages Allocation in Idaho

Example inputs

This worked example shows how to allocate damages using DocketMath for an Idaho matter with a general statute of limitations (SOL) rule. DocketMath uses jurisdiction-aware defaults; for Idaho, the general/default SOL period is 2 years under Idaho Code § 19-403.

Facts used (illustrative)

Assume you’re calculating damages for three buckets that accrue at different times:

• Bucket A: Medical expenses

  • Incurred: $4,200
  • Accrual date: 2023-03-15

• Bucket B: Wage loss

  • Incurred: $6,500
  • Accrual date: 2024-01-20

• Bucket C: Property damage

  • Incurred: $3,800
  • Accrual date: 2022-09-10

Filing timeline

• Event date (trigger used for SOL lookback): 2025-01-10
  (Commonly: the filing date is compared to accrual dates; we’ll model a lookback from filing to determine what falls inside the SOL window.)
• SOL period used by DocketMath (Idaho default): 2 years

  • Source: Idaho Code § 19-403 (general SOL period)

Source link (as provided for the jurisdiction data): https://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/title-36/chapter-14/section-36-1406/?utm_source=openai

DocketMath inputs to use

Open the tool: **/tools/damages-allocation

Within damages-allocation, you’ll typically enter:

1. Jurisdiction: US-ID (Idaho)
2. General SOL period: 2 years
3. Trigger / filing date: 2025-01-10
4. Damage buckets (each with amount + accrual date):

   • A: amount 4200, accrual 2023-03-15
   • B: amount 6500, accrual 2024-01-20
   • C: amount 3800, accrual 2022-09-10

Compute the SOL window (for sanity-checking)

With a 2-year general period and a filing date of 2025-01-10, the lookback window begins:

• Window start: 2023-01-10
• Window end: 2025-01-10

Bucket eligibility (inside the window):

• Bucket A (2023-03-15): ✅ inside (on/after 2023-01-10)
• Bucket B (2024-01-20): ✅ inside
• Bucket C (2022-09-10): ❌ outside (before 2023-01-10)

DocketMath will allocate damages accordingly: amounts tied to accrual dates inside vs. outside the SOL window affect the “recoverable” portion shown in the output.

Disclaimer (gentle): This is a modeling example for how an SOL lookback can be applied to damage “buckets.” Real accrual rules can be more nuanced than a single accrual date per bucket.

Example run

Below is the expected walkthrough outcome for this exact input set in DocketMath (jurisdiction-aware allocation using Idaho’s general SOL period).

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 allocation logic (default/general rule)

DocketMath applies the general Idaho SOL period:

• Idaho general SOL: 2 years per Idaho Code § 19-403
• No claim-type-specific override is applied (based on the provided jurisdiction data)

For each bucket:

1. Compare the accrual date to the SOL lookback start (filing date minus 2 years).
2. If the accrual is on/after the window start, treat the bucket amount as potentially recoverable.
3. If the accrual is before the window start, treat the bucket amount as potentially time-barred (excluded from recoverable totals).

Run results (numbers)

Total incurred damages: $4,200 + $6,500 + $3,800 = $14,500
Total allocated (recoverable) damages: $4,200 + $6,500 = $10,700

What you should see in the DocketMath output

Depending on the tool’s display format, the output commonly includes:

• Recoverable total (sum of eligible buckets)
• Excluded / non-recoverable total (sum of ineligible buckets)
• Bucket-level allocation (so you can explain why each amount was included/excluded)

For this run:

• Recoverable: $10,700
• Excluded: $3,800

Sensitivity check

This section tests how changes to the inputs can change the SOL window outcome. It’s a practical way to confirm that your modeling assumptions (especially accrual dates and the chosen trigger date) drive the result.

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.

Scenario 1: Bucket A accrual shifts by ±30 days

Keep all else the same; change Bucket A accrual:

• A1: accrual becomes 2023-01-05 (30 days earlier)

  • Window start: 2023-01-10
  • Result: ❌ flips to excluded (because 2023-01-05 is before 2023-01-10)

Expected impact:

• Recoverable decreases by $4,200

• New recoverable total: $10,700 − $4,200 = $6,500

• A2: accrual becomes 2023-02-14

  • Still ✅ inside the window
  • Recoverable stays $10,700

Takeaway: When an accrual date sits near the SOL boundary (here, early January 2023), the recoverable total can swing by the full bucket amount.

Scenario 2: Filing/trigger date changes by 1 year (2026 vs 2025)

Change trigger / filing date from 2025-01-10 → 2026-01-10 while keeping accrual dates fixed.

New lookback window start:

• Window start becomes 2024-01-10 to 2026-01-10

Eligibility becomes:

• Bucket A (2023-03-15): ❌ now outside
• Bucket B (2024-01-20): ✅ inside
• Bucket C (2022-09-10): ❌ outside

Expected:

• Recoverable becomes $6,500 (only Bucket B)
• Excluded becomes $14,500 − $6,500 = $8,000

  • Specifically excluded: $4,200 (A) + $3,800 (C) = $8,000

Takeaway: Allocation is highly sensitive to the filing/trigger date used to compute the SOL lookback window.

Scenario 3: Mixed modeling within one bucket (time-sliced approach)

If “wage loss” is truly continuous (or accrues in stages), modeling it as one bucket with one accrual date can oversimplify. Instead, split into sub-buckets:

• Wage loss portion 1: $3,000 accrued 2023-12-15
• Wage loss portion 2: $3,500 accrued 2024-02-01

With the original filing date (2025-01-10):

• Window start: 2023-01-10
• Both sub-portions are ✅ inside the window
• Recoverable remains $6,500

If the filing date were closer to the boundary, one portion might move outside and reduce the recoverable total accordingly.

Checklist for sensitivity testing:

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