Worked example: Damages Allocation in Washington

Example inputs

Below is a worked example for damages allocation in Washington (US-WA) using DocketMath’s damages-allocation calculator. This example shows how you’d allocate (1) damages amounts and (2) whether each damages component is within the recoverable time window based on Washington’s general statute of limitations (SOL) rules.

Jurisdiction-aware rule used (Washington):

• General SOL Period: 5 years
• General Statute: RCW 9A.04.080

Scenario (numbers you can change)

Assume a dispute involving three damages components tied to different event dates:

And assume the lawsuit filing date is:

• Filing date: 2024-06-01

DocketMath inputs to use

In DocketMath (primary CTA: /tools/damages-allocation), supply inputs like these:

• Jurisdiction: US-WA (Washington)
• SOL (default): 5 years under RCW 9A.04.080
• Filing date: 2024-06-01
• Damages events: each event’s date + amount
• Allocation basis: damages included only if the event date falls within the SOL lookback window ending on (or effectively aligned with) the filing date

Because DocketMath is allocating—not merely summing—your allocation result depends on the event dates you associate with each damages component. (This is not legal advice; it’s a practical example of how a general SOL window can be used in a calculator workflow.)

Example run

Here’s what the allocation means in plain terms, and how it matches the typical “included vs. excluded by SOL window” logic you’d expect DocketMath to apply.

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 1: Compute the lookback window (5 years)

Washington’s default SOL period in this example is:

• 5 years under RCW 9A.04.080

So the SOL lookback window is approximately:

• Start of window: 2019-06-01
• End of window (filing date): 2024-06-01

Day-count conventions can vary slightly (how a system treats “years” vs. exact days), but the practical inclusion/exclusion outcome is usually the same unless an event sits very close to the boundary.

Step 2: Allocate by event date

Apply the window to each damages event:

• Event A (2020-05-10): within the window → included
• Event B (2021-02-15): within the window → included
• Event C (2019-11-01): within the window → included

With these dates, all three events fall within roughly the 5-year period leading up to 2024-06-01, so the allocation may include 100% of the stated damages.

Step 3: Total included vs. excluded

Total stated damages:

• $120,000 + $80,000 + $50,000 = $250,000

Allocated damages (within SOL window):

• Included: $250,000
• Excluded: $0

What DocketMath would output (conceptually)

When you run the same inputs in DocketMath’s damages-allocation tool, you’d generally expect outputs such as:

• Included amount
• Excluded amount
• Included event breakdown (and, if any, excluded event breakdown)

If your inputs match this scenario, the tool should show:

• Included damages: $250,000
• Excluded damages: $0

To run this exact type of workflow again, use /tools/damages-allocation.

Quick jurisdiction note

In this example, the time horizon is anchored to Washington’s general 5-year period under RCW 9A.04.080. Because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified for this scenario, the calculator should not switch to a different SOL based solely on claim labels.

Sensitivity check

This section shows how results change when you adjust inputs—especially dates. In SOL-based allocation, moving the filing date or moving an event date across the approximate boundary can flip inclusion.

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.

Sensitivity A: Move the filing date earlier

Keep damages events the same, but change filing date:

• New filing date: 2024-04-15
• Lookback approx 2019-04-15 to 2024-04-15

Re-check inclusion:

• Event A (2020-05-10): included
• Event B (2021-02-15): included
• Event C (2019-11-01): included

Result: likely $250,000 included and $0 excluded.

Try an even earlier filing date:

• Alternate filing date: 2024-03-01
• Lookback approx 2019-03-01 to 2024-03-01

Event C (2019-11-01) is still later than the start of the window, so it remains included.

Bottom line: the allocation is robust here to moderate filing-date shifts.

Sensitivity B: Move one event earlier than ~5 years

Change Event C from 2019-11-01 to 2019-01-10, keeping:

• Filing date: 2024-06-01
• SOL: 5 years under RCW 9A.04.080

Now check inclusion:

• Event A (2020-05-10): included
• Event B (2021-02-15): included
• Event C (2019-01-10): now likely excluded (outside the 5-year lookback window)

Recomputed allocation:

• Included = $120,000 + $80,000 = $200,000
• Excluded = $50,000

Sensitivity C: What the tool is essentially doing (in this setup)

For the purposes of this worked example, DocketMath’s allocation logic is effectively:

1. Use RCW 9A.04.080’s general 5-year SOL period
2. Create a lookback window ending on the filing date
3. Include damages whose event dates fall inside the window
4. Exclude damages whose event dates fall outside the window

So, treat filing date and each event date as first-class inputs. Small changes can matter when dates are close to the boundary.

Practical checklist (before interpreting results)

• Confirm you selected Washington (US-WA) in DocketMath.
• Confirm DocketMath is applying the general 5-year SOL under RCW 9A.04.080 (default).
• Make sure each damages “event date” is the date the damages are truly tied to (based on your underlying facts).
• Verify that the tool’s included/excluded totals align with the SOL window logic.

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