Worked example: Damages Allocation in Wyoming

Example inputs

Below is a worked example showing how DocketMath’s damages-allocation calculator can help you model a damages allocation scenario in Wyoming. This is a demonstration of calculation logic, not legal advice, and it doesn’t replace a review of the specific claim details and evidence.

Scenario (what we’re allocating)

Assume a plaintiff claims damages that include:

• Compensatory damages (e.g., out-of-pocket losses): $120,000
• Other damages (e.g., additional monetary loss categories): $80,000
• Pre-judgment interest (modeled as a separate line item for illustration): $18,000
• Costs (modeled separately): $6,500

Total claimed = $120,000 + $80,000 + $18,000 + $6,500 = $224,500

Time-window modeling (Wyoming statute of limitations)

DocketMath can apply a lookback window when you’re allocating damages to periods that may be actionable.

Wyoming’s general civil statute of limitations is 4 years, using the general default provision:

• General SOL Period (default): 4 years

  • Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105(a)(iv)(C) (general default period)
• Your jurisdiction data indicates: No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, so this example uses the general/default 4-year period.

Dates used in this example

• Incident/trigger date: January 1, 2020
• Filing date: January 15, 2024

Because the filing date is within the 4-year window relative to the incident date, this demo treats the modeled damages as potentially included (in other words, the time-window fraction is effectively treated as 100% for the purpose of this worked example).

Assumptions for allocation

This example assumes you want to allocate the total across categories proportionally to the category amounts after applying the time-window logic.

Calculator inputs:

• Compensatory: $120,000
• Other monetary categories: $80,000
• Pre-judgment interest (modeled separately): $18,000
• Costs (modeled separately): $6,500
• SOL lookback rule: use default 4 years under Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105(a)(iv)(C)
• Time-window result for this demo: 100% of the assumed losses fall within the 4-year window (based on the dates above)

DocketMath entry (CTA)

Start your run directly here: damages-allocation.

(If you use DocketMath alongside other litigation-math tools, you can also compare against an internal time-window model, when available.)

Example run

Now let’s run the model conceptually (the same arithmetic DocketMath performs under the hood).

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 total claimed base

Step 2: Apply the SOL window (default 4 years)

Using Wyoming’s general limitations period:

• 4 years: **Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105(a)(iv)(C)
• This is the general/default period for this example (because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the jurisdiction data).

With:

• incident date: Jan. 1, 2020
• filing date: Jan. 15, 2024

Result for this demo: the calculator treats the modeled amounts as allocated with no proration (time-window fraction = 100%) for the purpose of this example.

Step 3: Allocate by proportion

When DocketMath allocates damages across categories, a common approach is proportional allocation: each line item receives the same percentage of the post-window total.

Because the SOL window proration is 100%, allocation percentages match the category shares of the total:

• Compensatory share = 120,000 / 224,500 ≈ 53.45%
• Other monetary categories share = 80,000 / 224,500 ≈ 35.63%
• Pre-judgment interest share = 18,000 / 224,500 ≈ 8.02%
• Costs share = 6,500 / 224,500 ≈ 2.90%

Step 4: Report allocation outputs

Because the model includes everything in this demonstration, the allocated amounts equal the inputs.

Sensitivity check

Small changes to dates and category composition can materially change allocation outcomes—especially when the SOL window requires proration. Below are three practical sensitivity tests you can run in DocketMath using Wyoming’s general default 4-year rule.

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 1: Filing date moved forward beyond the trigger window

Change only the filing date:

• Incident/trigger date: Jan. 1, 2020
• New filing date: Dec. 15, 2024

Now the span exceeds the 4-year default period under Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105(a)(iv)(C).

Expected direction of change:

• DocketMath may reduce allocated amounts tied to periods outside the 4-year lookback, depending on how you model the damages timeline.

What to check in the output:

• Whether DocketMath reports a “within SOL window” fraction (or equivalent indicator)
• Whether interest and other components are prorated separately
• Whether categories are excluded entirely or reduced via a proportional factor

Sensitivity 2: Same dates, different mix of damages categories

Keep the filing/incident dates the same as the main example, but alter category composition:

• Compensatory: $120,000 → $90,000
• Other monetary categories: $80,000 → $110,000
• Interest and costs unchanged: $18,000 and $6,500

Total becomes $90,000 + $110,000 + $18,000 + $6,500 = $224,500 (same total, different mix).

Expected direction of change:

• If SOL inclusion remains 100%, the allocated total stays $224,500.
• Category allocations shift because the proportions change.

Sensitivity 3: Interest and costs treated as separate lines

To understand how DocketMath applies window logic across lines, rerun twice:

1. Set pre-judgment interest to $0, keep everything else the same
2. Restore pre-judgment interest to $18,000

Expected direction of change:

• Total drops by the interest amount while the SOL window logic remains structurally the same.
• Allocation percentages for the remaining categories increase accordingly.

Quick comparison table (Sensitivity 2 mix shift)

Assuming SOL inclusion is still 100% (same dates as the main example):

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